* Mark Baker wrote:
In working on the registration of application/xhtml+xml, one of the
issues was how to best handle a possible transition to XPointer.
During that thought experiment, it occurred to me that we should
be watching +xml registrations to ensure that, where possible,
"#foo" syntax is reserved for identifying fragments labelled with
an ID (or http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#id) type attribute of
value "foo".
XPointer does this, as I've said, in Section 4.2.2, "Bare Names".
You misunderstood.
My point is that if somebody goes out and registers application/bar+xml
tomorrow, and it defines "#foo" to mean something other than ID-based
fragment idenfication, then 3023 will have difficulty integrating XPointer
later because it cannot state that all +xml types will have the same
fragment identification behaviour.
Like I say, the chances are slim of this happening, but it's still,
IMO, an important enough issue to raise (assuming you like XPointer 8-).
MB
--
Mark Baker, CSO, Planetfred.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
mbaker(_at_)planetfred(_dot_)com