W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Trouble Ahead: Normative references to 2001 XPointer CR.

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:31:00 +0200
To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070713133100.GC31669@raktajino.does-not-exist.org>

No.  The #xpointer() scheme is defined in the separate 2002 Working
Draft, not in the framework.

However, there's a definition of what a barename means in the
framework, and a definition of an equivalent element(ID) usage in
the element() scheme Rec.

See my message from later last night; the revised spec text tries to
track these dependencies down and gives definitions of what an
implementation is supposed to do with xpointer(id('ID')) and
xpointer(/).

Cheers,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>






On 2007-07-13 09:27:29 -0400, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
> From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
> To: ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
> Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>,
> 	public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:27:29 -0400
> Subject: Re: Trouble Ahead: Normative references to 2001 XPointer CR.
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5
> 
> does the XPointer framework REC describe the #xpointer(id('ID')) usage
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2007, at 5:05 PM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2007-07-12 20:58:17 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure what the most appropriate course of action for the
>>> RECOMMEND language concerning the #xpointer(/) and
>>> #xpointer(id('ID')) approaches is. These are currently
>>> RECOMMENDED, but not defined in a Recommendation.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> There would probably be another change to RECOMMEND certain
>>> element() XPointers (specifically, element(ID) and element(/1),
>>> where the resource against which the XPointer is evaluated is the
>>> document that contains the URI attribute), replacing the current
>>> recommendation for the xpointer() XPointers with equivalent effect.
>>
>>> I'm, however, a bit wary about these changes; they seem to go
>>> somewhat far for a PER.  I'd welcome feed-back from the group, and
>>> will also solicit feedback in the Team.
>>
>> Thinking out loud here, we should be able to *define* the behavior
>> of #xpointer(id('ID')) and #xpointer(/) in terms of of element()
>> XPointers, without any resulting in any change in actual
>> conformance.
>>
>> The only issue would be that we'd technically be squatting on an
>> xpointer scheme that is under review, so that would require some
>> broader community discussion.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- 
>> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 13 July 2007 13:31:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:22:00 GMT