[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jonathan Borden scripsit:
> Well that is/would be the *benefit* of describing an XPointer scheme by
> QName/URI. Simon would be able to simply post a description of his XPointer
> extensions on his website, and software would be able to follow his XPointer
> schemes into XML documents. That would be really cool.
It would be really cool; it's probably well beyond the state of the
art, unless the "description" were written in Java er sumpn.
> 1) allow organizations/individuals other than the W3C to register XPointer
> schemes via the IETF i.e. via the current I-D -> RFC mechanism, assuming the
> IETF wished to maintain an XPointer scheme registry
I think no one would object to this solution with the exception of IANA,
which would have the job of actually maintaining the registry. IANA is
overworked and underfunded.
--
We call nothing profound jcowan@reutershealth.com
that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan
--Northrop Frye (improved) http://www.reutershealth.com
|
