W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2003

Re: XPointer [was: First Draft of summary of TAG issue abstractComponentRefs-37]

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:12:04 -0400
To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, www-tag-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE014C9F3.BA911CC1-ON85256D04.005E4E8D-85256D04.005E7B3E@us.ibm.com>
Paul,

Yes, it is. Please see [1]. There probably should be something done about 
the 
URIs because many people will rush to the same conclusion... the names of 
the
specs have changed.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

www-tag-request@w3.org wrote on 04/10/2003 10:15:43 AM:

> 
> At 21:59 2003 04 09 -0700, dorchard@bea wrote:
> 
> >4. Use full XPointer.  The sample URI is
> 
>http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/#xmlns((w=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/)x
> 
>pointer(//w:portType[@name="TicketAgent"]/w:operation[@name="listFlights"]/w
> >:input[@name="listFlightsRequest"])
> >
> >Pros:
> >- re-use XPointer syntax, which is a rec
> 
> No, it [1] is not.
> 
> It is not even at Last Call yet, and there is no currently
> existing working group responsible for working on it.
> 
> paul
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xptr-xpointer-20021219/
> 
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 13:12:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:17 GMT