• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liamquin@i...>
• Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 18:29:50 -0400

"Liam R. E. Quin" wrote:

> This seems to me to be sensible.
> It does mean that the parser has to check the encoding, though.

It has to anyway.
 
> What about XPointer?  #id(simon)
> You have to allow fragment ids, and to make them optional, I think.

They are definitely allowed.  The question is, if one is present, is
a parser allowed to ignore it?

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• References:
  • Re: Possible changes for XML 2nd Edition
    • From: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liamquin@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XLink a special case in the self-describing Web?
• Next by Date: Re: Possible changes for XML 2nd Edition
• Previous by thread: Re: Possible changes for XML 2nd Edition
• Next by thread: Re: Possible changes for XML 2nd Edition
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread