Re: RDDL for describing fragment identifier facilities

Simon St.Laurent wrote:


> If #35 refers to an ID, and bare IDs are taken as minimal conformance 
> for XML fragment identifiers, I don't see the problem.

Simon, as the author of XML Primer you know perfectly well that 35 is
not an ID, and anyway I didn't mean it to be.  I'm talking about a
mostly opaque resource type, video/flipbook, where the naive user
can either refer to the whole movie with no fragment id, or get a single
still by referencing it with a fragment id.

A flipbook embedded in an arbitrary XML document can't use this convenient
form of fragment reference.  How could it?  Why should it?  XPointer,
though a fire hose as you say, will put out the fire.
 
> I'm not entirely sure why you'd want to prohibit svgview() for SVG 
> embedded inside of XHTML.

Suppose there are five SVG graphics embedded in foo.xhtml.
Which one is addressed by foo.xhtml#svgview(...) ?

The Right Thing in this case would probably be an svgview() *function*
within XPointer, so that you could say #xpointer(foo/bar/baz/svgview(...)
to drill down to the correct picture and then, in effect, switch models.
But this is still an XPointer, not a SVG fragment id.
-- 
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein