W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

Re: [Minutes] 6-7 Feb 2003 TAG ftf meeting

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:32:02 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030211112853.00b51eb8@172.27.10.30>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:16 GMT