[Bug 4636] What should SML 3.3.1.1 say about fragment identifiers?

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4636





------- Comment #5 from kumarp@microsoft.com  2007-11-26 08:18 -------
Proposal: 
Define our own scheme based on the xpointer framework. The scheme is defined as
follows: 

1.    Scheme name: smlxpath1. 
2.    Scheme BNF:
SML_Fragment_ID = ‘smlxpath1’ ‘(‘ XPath1.0_LocationPath ‘)’ 
3.    sml:uri BNF:
SMLURI = URI (‘#’ SML_Fragment_ID)? 
4.    Namespace binding context:
The smlxpath1 scheme inherits the set of namespace bindings available to the
containing element. 

Reasons / More info: 

1.    We do not have to take normative dependence on schemes that are not w3c
Recommendations. 
2.    We do not have to spend considerable time defining a profile of some
other scheme. 
3.    Implementation impact: 
a.    Must implement Xpointer framework related parsing (as defined by BNF in
the xpointer framework). 
b.    Must implement Xpointer framework related escaping mechanism.