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

RE: XPointer registry

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:18:31 -0500
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA01609AC1@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
You know what I think of the whole xpointer registry business.

The last time I had anything to do with the registry page,
I asked Henry to correct the status of the xpointer() scheme.

So maybe Henry knows more about this page.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: Friday, 2010 November 12 10:23
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: XPointer registry
> 
> 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 18:19:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 November 2010 18:19:10 GMT