Re: Media types, fragment identifiers, and XPointer
Chris Lilley <chris <at> w3.org>
1999-06-01 11:57:49 GMT
MURATA Makoto wrote:
> Q1. Do we need XPointers for every XML instance?
They should be available, even if that capability is not used by a
particular instance. Other instances may point to that instance, and
will use XPointer to do so.
A particular xml document type might not use XPointer itself,
internally, but other people linking to parts of that document might
well expect XPointers which *they* make to that document type, to work.
> I personally think that this is too much. For example, I do not think we have
> use XPointers for RDF, which is in the XML syntax.
It is arguable that a later, refined syntax for RDF should use XPointer,
for compatibility with other XML applications.
>
> Q2. Do we need XPointers only for human-readable documents that are rendered
> by some browsers?
>
> I am not sure if the answer is Yes. How do XLL experts in this ML feel?
SVG (which is human viewable, though non-viewing applicationsa re also
possible) uses XPointer and XLink for such things as referencing
graphical symbols, which are to be re-used, or for pointing to runs of
text which are to be presented graphically (for example, as text on a
curved path).
(Continue reading)
#Thanks. > Larry Larry Masinter wrote: > > It would be good if we could extend the MIME registry of media > types to include, where possibly, a description of how > "fragment identifiers" apply to that media type. > > Currently this information is not in the media type registry, > and fragment identifiers are, in practice, only used for HTML. RFC2396 ("Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax"), which you co-authored, says: 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. The character restrictions described in Section 2 for URI also apply to the fragment in a URI-reference. Individual media types may define additional restrictions or structure within the fragment for specifying different types of "partial views" that can be identified within that media type. A fragment identifier is only meaningful when a URI reference is intended for retrieval and the result of that retrieval is a document for which the identified fragment is consistently defined. text/html is defined by RFC1866 (HTML 2.0). HTML 2.0 and its subsequent
RSS Feed