W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-annotation@w3.org > January to June 2001

Re: Use of Annotea with non-XHTML HTML

From: Matthew Wilson <matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 20:59:32 +0100
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010509205654.00b72e70@pop3.demon.co.uk>
To: vdv@dyomedea.com, www-annotation@w3.org
At 21:30 09/05/01 +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>Matthew Wilson wrote:
>
> > For Annozilla, I try to resolve the XPointer describing the context of the
> > annotation, and I intend to try and construct XPointers when creating
> > annotations. Currently I concentrate on things like
> > xpointer(/html[1]/body[1]/p[3]). This works quite well, but I can only do
> > this  by navigating the DOM.
>
>While I understand how useful this would be, this is not conform to the
>RFC 2854 [1] that is the normative reference describing the HTML media
>type (browse for "3. Fragment Identifiers").
>
>This RFC clearly states that the fragment identifier for HTML documents:
>
><quote>
>    designates the correspondingly named element; any element may be
>    named with the "id" attribute, and A, APPLET, FRAME, IFRAME, IMG and
>    MAP elements may be named with a "name" attribute.  This is described
>    in detail in [HTML40] section 12.
></quote>
>
>The syntax "http://foo.xxx/bar.html#xpointer(...)" should therefor not
>been used for HTML documents.
>
>To change this should involved only the XPointer WG, but also the
>authors of the RFC 2854 and the HTML WG which is quoted in this RFC.
>
>Since the HTML WG has declared that no further work would be done on
>HTML and that the problem is solved for XHTML, I wonder if these
>specifications are likely to be changed, though.
>
>My 0,02 Euros.
>
>Eric


I would tend to agree, but I'm just trying to imitate Amaya (or at least 
what I understand Amaya's usage to be...)

Matthew
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2001 16:00:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:19:17 GMT