- From: Matthew Wilson <matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 20:59:32 +0100
- To: vdv@dyomedea.com, www-annotation@w3.org
At 21:30 09/05/01 +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote: >Matthew Wilson wrote: > > > For Annozilla, I try to resolve the XPointer describing the context of the > > annotation, and I intend to try and construct XPointers when creating > > annotations. Currently I concentrate on things like > > xpointer(/html[1]/body[1]/p[3]). This works quite well, but I can only do > > this by navigating the DOM. > >While I understand how useful this would be, this is not conform to the >RFC 2854 [1] that is the normative reference describing the HTML media >type (browse for "3. Fragment Identifiers"). > >This RFC clearly states that the fragment identifier for HTML documents: > ><quote> > designates the correspondingly named element; any element may be > named with the "id" attribute, and A, APPLET, FRAME, IFRAME, IMG and > MAP elements may be named with a "name" attribute. This is described > in detail in [HTML40] section 12. ></quote> > >The syntax "http://foo.xxx/bar.html#xpointer(...)" should therefor not >been used for HTML documents. > >To change this should involved only the XPointer WG, but also the >authors of the RFC 2854 and the HTML WG which is quoted in this RFC. > >Since the HTML WG has declared that no further work would be done on >HTML and that the problem is solved for XHTML, I wonder if these >specifications are likely to be changed, though. > >My 0,02 Euros. > >Eric I would tend to agree, but I'm just trying to imitate Amaya (or at least what I understand Amaya's usage to be...) Matthew
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2001 16:00:41 UTC