Sjur Moshagen wrote: > The final XInclude spec does not allow fragment identifiers. See > > http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/ > > for more details, but the core is this: > > "Fragment identifiers _must not_ be used; their appearance is a _fatal > error_." > > Instead, fragments should be specified using a separate xpointer > attribute. > > This change relates to the following points in the commit: > > Den 7. aug. 2008 kl. 11.21 skrev crossley > > >Added: forrest/trunk/main/fresh-site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/ > >samples-b/xinclude-explanation.xml > >... > >+ <xi:include href="cocoon://samples-b/xinclude-input- > >sec3.xml#xpointer(/section/p)"/> > > and > > >Added: forrest/trunk/main/fresh-site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/ > >samples-b/xinclude.xml > >... > >+ <xi:include href="cocoon://samples-b/xinclude-input- > >sec3.xml#xpointer(/section/p)"/> > > In both cases the inclusion should be rewritten to: > > <xi:include href="cocoon://samples-b/xinclude-input-sec3.xml" > xpointer="xpointer(/section/p)"/> > > Another question is whether our XInclude processor is up-to-date with > the spec. I haven't tested that yet.
I just checked our sample. No, our packaged Cocoon does not handle that. If we define it that way, then it just includes the whole file. We need to open an issue until it is fixed at Cocoon, and until we use a newer Cocoon. I have not checked the Cocoon-2.2 code. Could someone do that and see if Cocoon have an open issue about that. Should we remove that part of our sample, or add a warning? The DTD changes done in FOR-1032, will later need to be enhanced to handle the "xpointer" attribute. -David
