• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
• Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 15:53:07 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20011109123709.020beec0@p...>; from tbray@t... on Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 12:40:46PM -0800
• References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011109123709.020beec0@p...>
• Reply-to: veillard@r...
• User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 12:40:46PM -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
> So where's the problem?  When you're trying to process an
> XLink/XPointer into something and the only thing you know
> about it is that it's XML.  Er..... what's the scenario 
> where this happens?  -Tim

  In 2 seconds XInclude comes to mind,

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@r...  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• References:
  • So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Next by Date: Re: Caught napping!
• Previous by thread: 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