|>>> I would also humbly submit the same scheme to be used as an extension to the
|>>> anchor label scheme in HTML proper ie say
|>>>
|>>> http://bongo.cern.ch/fred.html#H1:2/H2:4/H3:3/P:4/10,15
|>>
|>>This would be a great idea were there only some real containers to be used.
|>
|>I seem to be forever repeating myself. The syntax above is not
|>correct.
Not correct by whose definition? Are you refering to W3O or W3C draft specs or
an RFC from the IETF? Only the latter is definitive with respect to the Web
and even then only if it doth not contain egregious lossage.
|> The TEI people have already been down this path, and already
|>have a syntax which I proposed quite some time ago as an extension to
|>URL's for performing sub-document addressing. In fact, they have 2
|>syntaxes which are equally useful.
|>
|>section=1/subsection=2/para=3
|>
|>or
|>
|>1/2/3
Code ? Implementation? Rough consensus and working code!
What relation do these `sections' have to HTML elements. Is H1 a section?
Is H2 a subsection? What is a H3???
Is this an SGML standard or a Web standard? Who has commented on it? Dave
Ragget? Tim B-L? If its an SGML standard don't imagine that it has any
relationship to HTML.
|>I should note that HTML has few containiers as noted above, but we can
|>just look upon this as a degenerate case of deeply structured
|>documents. In fact, even things like RTF and LaTeX can have thier
|>components addressed by such schemes.
It is possible to create containers by associating sections of text with the
preceeding headers and nesting Hn+1 elements within Hn elements. This may be
hard to express in SGML lossage but that is SGML for you.
-- Phillip M. Hallam-BakerNot Speaking for anyone else.