I guess it's a start. If what I described isn't adequate for all cases, we'd have to look at augmenting it.
I would expect that a generic XML solution would be problematic because of reasons like there being no meaning for frag ids on */xml content, nor any guaranteed compatibility that they map to "id" or "xml:id" on */*+xml content. But I bet we can probably squeeze out a solution that can meet the needs of most authors without having to boil the ocean. Can you be more specific about the problems you see with embedded bindings (or anything else for that matter) in this context? Cheers, Mark. -- Mark Baker Manager, Standards Research in Motion Ltd. (M) +1.613.301.5470 ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Mark Baker Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tue Aug 22 12:19:55 2006 Subject: Re: XBL media type? On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:16:31 +0200, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > That's just a couple of things that popped out at me while following the > recent discussions. I've still yet to do a thorough review. So I thought the same thing more or less. About the media type and fragment identifiers. Is that really the only solution? I suspect you want it to just work for .xml documents as well. For example, bindings can be embedded... -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/> --------------------------------------------------------------------- This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
