W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-annotation@w3.org > January to June 2002

Re: Using XPointer with HTML

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:54:46 -0000
Message-ID: <004c01c1e08e$e4ff50c0$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, <www-annotation@w3.org>, "HTML WG" <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>
"Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
> From: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
> > > > Well of course you would, they're different documents!
> > >
> > > No, the same document, served with different media types. It is the
> > > same
> > > document, but the result of the media types means it gets parsed
> > > differently.
> >
> > Can you have an xhtml1.1 document that is served as text/html ?
> That is defined by RFC 2854. I believe you could manipulate an xhtml
> document in a similar way to Appendix C of XHTML 1.0
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines) so that it would be
acceptable to
> a UA that accepts text/html. It wouldn't be XHTML 1.1 to that UA of
> but it would still be an XHTML 1.1 document. (I'm not sure if this
> your question).

You can't follow those guidelines and have a valid XHTML 1.1. document
(Guidline C.7 creates an invalid document.) so the simple Appendix C
guidelines are not sufficient.  The HTML WG have obviously already solved
this http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/ is served as text/html - could you
make public how you solved it?  Certainly some of my UA's that only
accept text/html have some difficulties with it.

> So if you gave the above pointer to someone, what they would see would
> depend on the settings of their content negotiation parameters.

That's always true of xpointer though, it only exist for a given
document, content-negotiation defeats all the fragment identifier

Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2002 08:59:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:55 UTC