Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Monday 12 November 2001 03:48 pm, Jonathan Borden wrote: > Well the DTD is data also, and I was assuming the context of my earlier > post when I suggested that IDs can be provided in XML documents via > internal subsets. I think DTD's and documents, even with internal subsets, to be different things. > The point is that XML IDs are identifiers which are > defined in XML 1.0 and do not depend at all on application specific > semantics. They always depend on application semantics. The only thing XML 1.0 does is says that they nust be unique in a valid document. > Actually one cannot simply use whatever syntax one pleases for a fragment > id. To be conformant to RFC 2396, i.e. to be a "URI" as defined in 2396, > the fragment id must be constructed according to RFC 2396 and the > appropriate media type. _Assuming_ XPointer is accepted as the relevent > syntax for application/xml, text/xml, then a Raw Name is one of the 3 > syntaxes specified in XPointer, the others being ChildSeq and Full > XPointer. Right. Given that XPointer has not *yet* been accepted, and that RFC 2396 explicitly states that no syntax has yet been decided upon, it is still perfectly possible to define a syntax. FWIW. The RawName syntax in XLink is there for XHTML/HTML compatability only. As I've said, I think that's a bogus rationale for having something that can cause serious interoperability issues, and which is forcing people to examine other mechanisms for grandfathering the semantics because the underlying mechanism is unreliable.
|
