W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 1998

Re: Level 2 and disjoint selections

From: Gabe Beged-Dov <begeddov@jfinity.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 08:41:23 -0800
Message-ID: <000e01be334a$12e3d470$160016c0@jfinity1>
To: "Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, <www-dom@w3.org>
Cc: <xlxp-dev@fsc.fujitsu.com>
[ I'm cross-posting this to the xlxp mailing list since it is relavent ]

Paul Grosso writes:

>What is "the xlxp mailing list?"  I'm on the XML Link WG and IG, which
>would seem to me to be the best place to post thoughts on XPointer, and
>I don't remember seeing anything.

xlxp is a public mailing list that Ralph Ferris of Fujitsu set up for
discussion of XLink and XPointer. It is a spin-off of xml-dev.
Unfortunately, there is no archive that I am aware of.

To subscribe, send a message to:

majordomo@fsc.fujitsu.com

In the body of the message put:

subscribe xlxp-dev

>I haven't been following the DOM range discussion in great detail.

I am reacting to the spec. Since I am not a W3C member, I am not privy to
any discussions that may have occurred on internal mailing lists on ranges
:-(

>What do you mean by "range selections which is one of the capabilities
>of XPointer?"

Both the string and span locations terms of XPointer "select" ranges.

>Where do you get the equation of range selections and
>XPointer capabilities?

see http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xptr#3.7

>Does the DOM work on ranges define disjoint
>selections as a single range?

Not that I can see.

>I would oppose XPointer supporting disjoint selections.  I believe
>XPointer should be basic addressing into XML documents, and things
>such as disjoint selection could be built on top of basic addressing.
>Put another way, I'd be fine with XLink allowing the specification
>of disjoint selections, but it might take a couple XPointer specs
>(remember, XLink would support multiple end points) to describe this.


I agree with you. I would very much like to see a level 0 version of
XPointer that is only about addressing. XQL seems like the best place to put
the query (disjoint selection) capability. Even the "string" location term
is borderline since it is really a query rather than a navigational
construct.

Gabe Beged-Dov
www.jfinity.com
Received on Tuesday, 29 December 1998 11:42:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:46 GMT