- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:41:35 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
* Norman Walsh wrote: >| Assuming this is meant to formally address the issue, I don't think this >| is acceptable, draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-01.txt expired about two >| weeks ago and it clearly noted that >| >| If [XPointerFramework] and [XPointerElement] are inappropriate for >| some XML-based media type, it SHOULD NOT follow the naming convention >| '+xml'. >| >| which means it is possible that for some "XML resources" the "format of >| the fragment identifier" is not specified by XPointer. In fact, XPointer >| only defines a framework, for e.g. image/svg+xml the concrete format of >| fragment identifiers is specified in the SVG specifications. > >Does the following proposal seem satisfactory? > For locators into XML resources, the format of the fragment > identifier (if any) used within the URI reference is specified by > [RFC xxxx]. You assume that there is and will be one format for all XML resources. As I pointed out, this is currently unwarrented. So no, neither text would address my concern. Text that would acknowledge that fragment identifiers are defined for each individual media type would be more appropriate. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2005 19:41:39 UTC