W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Liaison statement on fragment identifiers from Linking WG

From: Bill Smith <bill.smith@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 06:06:30 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: shane@themacs.com, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>, w3c-xml-cg@w3.org, w3c-html-wg@w3.org, www-html-editor@w3.org, w3c-xml-linking-wg@w3.org
At 07:38 PM 5/13/99 -0500, Shane P. McCarron wrote:
>Tim Bray wrote:
>> I agree with Bill that a lot of people are going to ignore the
>> recommendation and just go on using "name", and will be surprised
>> and upset that this doesn't work when you serve the doc as
>> text/xml.  Speaking for myself, I honestly can't really predict
>> whether this will be a problem - there is a good chance that anyone
>> who cares enough to issue a text/xml media type will take the
>> trouble to get the IDs in order.
>The good news is that the tool HTML Tidy from the W3C can do this you -
>or at least help do it.

It can only do one side of this as an author moves from HTML to XHTML. All
of the web pages that refer (using a fragment identifier) to the HTML
version will fail to locate the correct fragment in the XHTML version. So
in this case, transition is not made easier but rather more difficult. Web
pages will silently fail to behave as expected.

>Basically, as I see it, we have two alternatives here.

A third alternative is to register XHTML (as an application of XML) as a
separate mime-type. Whether this practice is (in general) good is subject
to debate but I hope we are agreed that we should not encumber
(application-neutral) XML with application-specific HTML semantics.
Received on Monday, 17 May 1999 09:44:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:08:21 UTC