Re: Conformance value of "+xml"?

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.

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

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.

It's hard to push it while we still have language like this [1]:

>XPointer [XPTR] allows components of XML documents to be addressed 
>in terms of their placement in the XML structure rather than on 
>their unique identifiers. This allows referencing of any portion 
>of an XML document without having to modify that document. Without 
>XPointer, pointing within a document may require adding unique 
>identifiers to it, or inserting specific elements into the document, 
>such as a named anchor in HTML. XPointers are put within the fragment 
>identifier part of a URI [URI]. The SMIL 2.0 specification does not 
>require that browsers be able to process XPointers in SMIL 2.0 URI 
>attributes. 

[1] -
http://www.w3.org/TR/smil20/extended-linking.html#SMILLinking-Relationship-t
o-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