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

Re: New Issue: Range of URI+fragment dereference function (new issue?)

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:52:59 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <87lm76ttjo.fsf@nwalsh.com>

/ Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
|> ...
|> I think we can finesse that point as follows:
|>   For instance, if the representation is an HTML document, the
|>   fragment identifier designates a hypertext anchor. If the
|>                                                      ^^^^^^
|>   representation is an XML document, the fragment identifier
|>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>   designates an element. In the case of a graphics format, a URI
|>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>   reference might designate a circle or spline. 
| What if the representation is both an XML document and a graphics
| format? i.e. SVG!

This boils down to what the MIME type is, doesn't it? That's not a
good answer, necessarily, but I did say I was trying to finesse the
point. :-)

If it's XML, yes, I think you have to point to the elements. But for
"a graphics format" it would be reasonable to have a fragment
identifier syntax that could designate circles and splines. That
doesn't mean that *all* graphics formats would support such fragids,
of course.

|> ... In the case of RDF, a
|>   a URI reference can designate anything, be it abstract (e.g., a
|>   dream) or concrete (e.g., my car). 
| Here we go again. Are we designating the element or the abstraction
| represented by the element?

My understanding...nope. Nope. Not on a Friday afternoon. I'm too
tired :-)

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | A hen is only an egg's way of making another
XML Standards Architect | egg.--Samuel Butler (II)
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | 
Received on Friday, 16 August 2002 16:53:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:33 UTC