W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2002

DISCONTINUE XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?

From: eximcon <eximcon@mail.ru>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 07:39:01 +0530
Message-ID: <009e01c24013$adf58420$ba9b09ca@abcd4>
To: "Masayasu Ishikawa" <mimasa@w3.org>, <AndrewWatt2000@aol.com>
Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>, <shane@aptest.com>, <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-html@w3.org>, <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>


----- Original Message -----
From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
To: <AndrewWatt2000@aol.com>
Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>; <shane@aptest.com>; <tbray@textuality.com>;
<www-html@w3.org>; <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?



AndrewWatt2000@aol.com wrote:

> Is this an issue for the TAG?

This is an issue for the TAG.

    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xlinkScope-23

> Additionally the XHTML 2.0 WD has no indication that I could find of
support
> for XPointer. One wonders why the primitive # fragment identifier is the
only
> (as far as I could see) fragment identifier in W3C's "new generation"
XHTML?

RFC 2396, "4.1. Fragment Identifier" says as follows:

   The semantics of a fragment identifier is a property of the data
   resulting from a retrieval action, regardless of the type of URI used
   in the reference.  Therefore, the format and interpretation of
   fragment identifiers is dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of the
   retrieval result.  ...

It is defined to be dependent on the media type.  If RFC 3023 gets
updated and adopted XPointer, then if you serve an XHTML 2 document
as 'application/xml', whatever fragment identifier syntax allowed for
'application/xml' may be used for that document - though, currently
there's no defined fragment identifier syntax in RFC 3023.

We thought that's a disaster, so "[u]ntil [XMLMIME] gets updated",
the 'application/xhtml+xml' media type uses 'id' attribute value.
Once RFC 3023 gets updated, RFC 3236 will also be updated to adopt
whatever 'application/xml' adopted.

> Is the absence of mention of XPointer in the XHTML 2.0 WD an indication
that
> the XHTML WG intends to forego in perpetuity the potential benefits of
> XPointer?

No.  We are waiting XPointer to advance to more mature stage, and
relevant media type registrations get updated.

Regards,
--
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Saturday, 10 August 2002 01:42:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:52 GMT