W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2010

XPointer registry

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:22:34 -0500
To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2bp5u7bqt.fsf@nwalsh.com>
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.com

Received 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