• To: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:40:43 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200111122245.WAA17961@p...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E401C9B300@u...> <E163NOI-0000V0-00@s...> <200111122245.WAA17961@p...>

On Monday 12 November 2001 05:45 pm, David Carlisle wrote:
> The point is that by using a "plain" URI fragment identifier you can
> publish a uri reference that works whatever mime type is published from
> the uri. Thus there are advantages in making this plain syntax work
> for as large a range of documents as possible. 

I debate the value of this.... it sounds like you're trying to standardise 
the #foo syntax across all media types?

In practice, I don't think #foo is all that useful if it requires kludges to 
support it. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• References:
  • RE: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better than IDs...
• Next by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• Previous by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread