[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> At 09:59 AM 9/26/00 -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
> >My understanding from Dan was that the cat's already out of the bag; SVG
> >uses +xml.

Actually we currently use -xml which was what an earlier version of the
internet draft said, and will consider switching to whatever the eventual
internet standard says once it settles down.

> On fragment identifiers, SVG, SMIL, and XHTML all have potential problems.

Such as?

> I'm even more concerned that there are a lot of XML applications out there
> which haven't considered the problem at all - it's not something that comes
> up as a question in XML tutorials that I've seen.  (I'll be adding it to
> future editions, believe me.)
> On the other hand, I'm not sure that the problem is quite as drastic as it
> seems.  Any XML application can point into an SVG, SMIL, or XHTML document
> using XPointer.  It's just that SVG, SMIL, and XHTML applications may not
> let those documents point _out_ using XPointer.
> While I'd like to say across the board that EVERYONE should use XPointer in
> all its glory when they use XML, it's awfully hard to push that when the
> W3C hasn't made that case across the board.

Yes, I share the concern. That is why SVG 1.0 uses #xptr(id(foo)) when this
gives no more functionality than good old #foo - it indicates future
direction, and I would expect versions of SVG greater than 1.0 to use the
ful xpointer syntax. 

The WG didn't want to bite off fully general pointers, but didn't want to
indicate that XPointer was not to be used, either.