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

Re: Conformance value of "+xml"? (was empty, or "[symm]")

Lloyd Rutledge wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30 2000 Chris Lilley wrote:
> > OK. Your understanding is not correct. Servers do not process the fragment
> > identifiers, because therse are not sent to the server (queries, following
> > a ? character, *are* sent to the server and perhaps that is what you are
> > thinking of?)

> Thanks, Chris -- I stand corrected.  Other main points from my
> previous post still stand, though.

Yes, of course. I was not disagreeing with your entire post - just the
particular part about fragment identifiers appended to URIs.

>  Many SMIL constructs have values
> that are XPointer subsets, rather than being SMIL-only.  This
> minimizes format re-learning and facilitates future further
> incorporation of XPointer.  Full XPointer is not required in SMIL, but
> is explicitly enabled.

That seems to be wise at this point; a future direction is clearly shown,
and what is there is compatible (proper subset) so a general purpose
XPointer inmplementation can be used.