- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:32:02 -0600
- To: www-tag@w3.org
At 09:26 2003 02 11 -0800, Tim Bray wrote: >Paul Grosso wrote: > >>So I'm wondering if the text or the link is wrong. As written, >>it looks like TB is saying fragmentInXML-28 and xmlIDSemantics-32 >>are related, but I'm guessing the text is wrong and he means to >>be saying that xmlProfiles-29 and xmlIDSemantics-32 are related >>(to which I disagree, but I'm more interested in getting the minutes >>accurate at this point). > >What I was saying is that people who are interested in solving the ID problem often are motivated by the idea that they're also solving the fragment-identifier problem, i.e. what does foo#bar mean when foo is served as */xml or */*+xml. > >I'm not 100% convinced that the issues are the same issue, but they're probably not orthogonal and it would be silly to focus on the ID problem without thinking about the frag-id issues. -Tim Then you are, in fact, comparing fragmentInXML-28 and xmlIDSemantics-32 (as opposed to xmlProfiles-29 and xmlIDSemantics-32). That makes more sense to me. Given the bad link in the minutes and the mention of xmlProfiles-29 within this section immediately following these lines, I thought you were linking xmlProfiles-29 and xmlIDSemantics-32 to which I would take some issue. Sorry for the confusion. paul
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 12:32:54 UTC