- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:38:36 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
- Cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
At 5:16 PM -0600 11/10/03, Dan Connolly wrote: >Is this 'new xpointer attribute' a shorthand for >a full URI? Speaking as a non-working group member, I'm pretty sure this is meant to address the problem that there is no fragment identifier syntax for XML. If the W3C and IETF are prepared to endorse the XLink working group's Proposal for XML Fragment Identifier Syntax 0.9 <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-fragid/> as the fragment identifier syntax for XML, then XInclude would be more than happy to use it. Basically this requires support for bare name and element() scheme XPointers. There is an architectural issue here: it's the lack of a fragment identifier syntax for XML. As a result of this, URI references like http://www.example.com/file.xml#id and http://www.example.com/file.xml#element(1/2/3) are not fully defined. :-( -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003) http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA
Received on Monday, 10 November 2003 18:41:51 UTC