[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?

• To: AndrewWatt2000@a...
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w...>
• Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 04:13:58 +0900 (JST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l..., shane@a..., tbray@t...,www-html@w..., www-xml-linking-comments@w...
• In-reply-to: <f3.1f45acab.2a84eada@a...>
• Organization: W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
• References: <f3.1f45acab.2a84eada@a...>

AndrewWatt2000@a... wrote:

> Is this an issue for the TAG?

This is an issue for the TAG.

    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xlinkScope-23

> Additionally the XHTML 2.0 WD has no indication that I could find of support 
> for XPointer. One wonders why the primitive # fragment identifier is the only 
> (as far as I could see) fragment identifier in W3C's "new generation" XHTML? 

RFC 2396, "4.1. Fragment Identifier" says as follows:

   The semantics of a fragment identifier is a property of the data
   resulting from a retrieval action, regardless of the type of URI used
   in the reference.  Therefore, the format and interpretation of
   fragment identifiers is dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of the
   retrieval result.  ...

It is defined to be dependent on the media type.  If RFC 3023 gets
updated and adopted XPointer, then if you serve an XHTML 2 document
as 'application/xml', whatever fragment identifier syntax allowed for
'application/xml' may be used for that document - though, currently
there's no defined fragment identifier syntax in RFC 3023.

We thought that's a disaster, so "[u]ntil [XMLMIME] gets updated",
the 'application/xhtml+xml' media type uses 'id' attribute value.
Once RFC 3023 gets updated, RFC 3236 will also be updated to adopt
whatever 'application/xml' adopted.

> Is the absence of mention of XPointer in the XHTML 2.0 WD an indication that 
> the XHTML WG intends to forego in perpetuity the potential benefits of 
> XPointer?

No.  We are waiting XPointer to advance to more mature stage, and
relevant media type registrations get updated.

Regards,
-- 
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w...
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...

• Prev by Date: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Next by Date: Re: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Next by thread: Re: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread