- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 10:00:51 +0100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: "Ignacio Hernandez-Ros" <ihr@xbrl.org>, <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bjoern Hoehrmann writes: > A very simple matter really, but unfortunately some people have major > misconceptions about this, as you can see from the other responses to > your question. Well, as the only other respondent :-). . . You're right that RFC 3023 as it stands defines no semantics for frag-ids for text/xml or application/xml or any of the compound ...+xml media types. On the other hand, common practice, _very_ widely supported, interprets barename fragids as defined in the XPointer Framework REC [1], that is, as you would expect, that they identify the element information item whose ID is the given barename. This will be made official once RFC3023bis [2] is completed and adopted, which will be RSN I hope. ht [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/ [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-02.html,access - -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEfAnDkjnJixAXWBoRAlXhAJ9CENRfZw4x9JNZDZUB2Dv5CSqLewCfazyz E9yQT95XtHvfjgWi+pNOAbg= =47Gv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 09:01:09 UTC