- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 03:46:36 -0800
- To: Colin Paul Adams <colin@colina.demon.co.uk>, public-qt-comments@w3.org
Thank you for your note. The joint WGs discussed your question on November 9. The argument to fn:doc is an anyURI (in the form of a xs:string) that allows a fragment identifier. We agreed to add words to clarify this. The mapping of xs:anyURIs to document nodes is implementation-defined and is the function of the uri-resolver. Please let us know if this resolution is satisfactory. All the best, Ashok > -----Original Message----- > From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Colin > Paul Adams > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 10:03 AM > To: public-qt-comments@w3.org > Subject: [F&O] fn:doc and fragment-ids > > > I'm am confused as to what is supposed to happen if the argument to > fn:doc() includes a fragment-id. > > On the one hand, the draft says the argument is an xs:anyURI, > passed as an xs:string, so it is legitimate to include a fragment-id. > On the other hand, the semantics is defined as a mapping of > strings onto DOCUMENT nodes, and a fragment-id cannot point > to a document node (though it might point to a document element). > > But the way URIs are mapped onto document nodes is not > specified. Does this mean it is implementation-defined as to > whether the fragment-id is used, or is it an error to include one? > -- > Colin Paul Adams > Preston Lancashire > > >
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 11:47:25 UTC