- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:52:59 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
/ Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
|>
|> ...
|>
|> I think we can finesse that point as follows:
|>
|> For instance, if the representation is an HTML document, the
|> fragment identifier designates a hypertext anchor. If the
|> ^^^^^^
|> representation is an XML document, the fragment identifier
|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> designates an element. In the case of a graphics format, a URI
|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> reference might designate a circle or spline.
|
| What if the representation is both an XML document and a graphics
| format? i.e. SVG!
This boils down to what the MIME type is, doesn't it? That's not a
good answer, necessarily, but I did say I was trying to finesse the
point. :-)
If it's XML, yes, I think you have to point to the elements. But for
"a graphics format" it would be reasonable to have a fragment
identifier syntax that could designate circles and splines. That
doesn't mean that *all* graphics formats would support such fragids,
of course.
|> ... In the case of RDF, a
|> a URI reference can designate anything, be it abstract (e.g., a
|> dream) or concrete (e.g., my car).
|
| Here we go again. Are we designating the element or the abstraction
| represented by the element?
My understanding...nope. Nope. Not on a Friday afternoon. I'm too
tired :-)
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM | A hen is only an egg's way of making another
XML Standards Architect | egg.--Samuel Butler (II)
Sun Microsystems, Inc. |
Received on Friday, 16 August 2002 16:53:57 UTC