Sigh. On http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-schemes/ I see several schemes that are in a status of "Being reviewed". But "Being reviwed" is not a defined term in http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-policy.html So who, exactly, is responsible for performing this review and how do I tell them I think they've made a mistake. My particular concern is that I think superseding the "xpath" scheme with "xpath1" and "xpath2" schemes is a mistake. I'm not sure I like the notion of numbered schemes in any event, but the *vast* majority of XPath selectors useful in an XPointer context are completely the same in both versions. Where I used to be able to say <xi:include ... xpointer="xpath(/doc/section[1]/para[1])"/> I now have to say <xi:include ... xpointer="xpath2(/doc/section[1]/para[1]) xpath1(/doc/section[1]/para[1])"/> and soon <xi:include ... xpointer="xpath3(/doc/section[1]/para[1]) xpath2(/doc/section[1]/para[1]) xpath1(/doc/section[1]/para[1])"/> You gotta be freaking kidding me! Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh Lead Engineer MarkLogic Corporation www.marklogic.comReceived on Friday, 12 November 2010 16:23:11 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 November 2010 16:23:12 GMT