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

Re: 3023bis and XPointer

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:16:35 +0100
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5boccbnmuk.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Grosso, Paul writes:

> [Henry] said to the TAG on 2010-09-02: 
>>     <noah> I'd like to scribe that more carefully: I (Henry) >think<
>>     (but need to check) that the minimum conformance requirement for
>>     the XPointer framework is barenames
>
> Minimum conformance with what?  XPointer Framework or 3023bis?

XPointer Framework, as it says.  3023bis requires support for the
element() scheme as well, as you point out.

>>     ht: as long as you have a xpointer implementation implementing
>>     barenames you are safe

> It sounds to me like 3023bis is saying the element() scheme must
> also be supported, so I don't understand the previous statement.

I don't think I was scribed particularly accurately, in the second
quote above.  What I was trying to get at was that if your
spec. defines a semantics for barename fragids, that's sufficient wrt
3023bis, because the only things you can point at with the element()
scheme XPointers are element infoitems, which are the same things you
can point at with barenames, so the same semantics will of necessity
work for either.

That is, imagine the following scenario:

 1) I pass a URI of the form
    http://example.com/foo/baz/mumble.xyz#element(/1/2)
    to an application;
 2) The application GETs /foo/baz/mumble.xyz from example.com;
 3) The Content-type of the response is application/zany+xml;
 4) My application conforms to all the necessary specs, as follows:
     a) 3023bis and the XPointer element() scheme;
        So it can extract the 2nd daugher element of the document
        element of the XML document corresponding to the response
        body;
     b) The semantics mandated by the specification governing the zany
        language for individual XML elements, because the zany spec
        described the semantics of barename frag-ids, which identify
        elements;
 5) I win -- my app has everything it needs to proceed.

ht
- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMhM2TkjnJixAXWBoRAtqTAJ9tTciz7FOkWgbN5gGCDJbL/kDnUgCeLNvl
7ReJv8N7/SsB5rj2u8hUoCU=
=IxUo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 6 September 2010 11:17:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:42 UTC