• To: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Subject: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:59:35 -0800
• Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>,xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <20040108120627.GQ31886@m...>
• References: <4C4EB02E-4177-11D8-A4BC-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <3ffdc130.2517580@s...> <20040108120627.GQ31886@m...>

On Jan 8, 2004, at 4:06 AM, John Cowan wrote:

> A fragment identifier attached to a URI that points to an XML document
> has no defined meaning

Actually, what you mean is, if something is */xml then the fragids have 
no meaning.  If the XML document is SVG, or XHTML, or RDF, or ... well 
just about any other XML format in widespread use, then the fragid does 
indeed have a well-understood meaning. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>
  • Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Cookies at XML Europe 2004 -- Call for Participation
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Cookies at XML Europe 2004 -- Call for Participation
• Previous by thread: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• Next by thread: Re: Why is xml:base a URI *reference*?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread