- 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