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

Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?

To: ietf-xml-mime@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?
From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 13:19:18 -0400
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-xml-mime.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-xml-mime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <> <>
Sender: owner-ietf-xml-mime@xxxxxxxxxxxx

At 05:58 PM 9/26/00 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
>"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
>> On fragment identifiers, SVG, SMIL, and XHTML all have potential problems.
>
>Such as?

Just this, which came a bit further down.

>> 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.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

References:
- RE: Conformance value of "+xml"?
  - From: Dan Kohn
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?
  - From: Martin J. Duerst
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?
  - From: Simon St.Laurent
- Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?
  - From: Chris Lilley

Prev by Date: Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?
Next by Date: XPointer scheme names (was Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?)
Previous by thread: Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?
Next by thread: Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread