Re: 4.1 Address types

> >4.1.a Should we have a single attribute 
> >4.1.b If so, what should the attribute be called? 
> >4.1.c If not, should we use a different attribute for each type 
> >4.1.d If using different attributes for locator languages
> >4.1.e Should we discard this scheme and adopt something 
> >4.1.f Should we abandon the idea of different address types and assert that 
> >everything is a URL?  


I am looking for mine, too.
> <asbestos-undies>do SGML IDREFs really need to be subsumed into XML Link?
I would be happy if it would work out that URL#IDREF is valid for XML.
<eyes closed> I do not see any reason it shouldn't 

> Ooh, I'm gonna get scorched.</asbestos-undies> -T.
Every one in the frying-pan!