Re: XPointer and XHTML

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I just feel it is important that XPointer 1.0 be compatible with XHTML 
>(even if that means adding schemes to it) - after all it is perfectly 
>capable of addressing parts of XHTML documents.

Sure, this is a reasonable expectation.  There are two things that would
make this more likely:

- XHTML being served as */xml

  (Not under our control.)

- XHTML defining its own MIME type and a fragment identifier language
  that subsumes XPointer

  (Also not under our control, though this week we've been discussing
  how best to make it attractive for other XML-based media types to base
  their fragment IDs on XPointer...  I believe XHTML is defining its
  own MIME type, so there's an opportunity here.)

	Eve