[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
jcowan@reutershealth.com (John Cowan) writes:
>Propose an alternative open system that doesn't involve creating a new
>registry just for the purpose.
I think I've already made it clear that between MIME Content Type
registrations and the limited number of plausible generic schemes a new
registry is unnecessary.
In any event, perhaps it's time to drop the notion that the world must
have an XML Fragment Identifier syntax by 31 December 2002. It's not
clear at all that an "open" system is necessary, and constraining the
development of "alternative systems" with that deadline seems
artificial.
Just let the XLink WG fade into history, leaving their public documents
available, and pass for now on the vision of one true W3C-determined
fragment identifier syntax for XML. The train has been off the tracks
for years now, and seems to have dived into the ocean with the latest
drafts.
People definitely need a means of identifying fragments within XML
documents. It is not at all clear that they should be looking to the
W3C and its peculiar URI and QName biases for an answer.
-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
