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

RE: Architectural problems of the XInclude CR

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:28:43 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030129122000.01d8bd48@172.27.10.30>
To: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org

At 19:11 2003 01 16 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote (in part) [1]:

>====== Forwarded Message ======
>Date: 12/30/02 2:53 PM
>From: simonstl@simonstl.com (Simon St.Laurent)
>To: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
>
>Things that "XInclude per se could or should do":
>
>* Mention content negotiation and its potential impact on XInclude
>processing.


At 08:08 2003 01 22 -0500, Tim Berners-Lee wrote (in part) [2]:

>IMHO
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>
>To: <www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org>
>Cc: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>; <www-tag@w3.org>
>Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 2:48 AM
>Subject: Architectural problems of the XInclude CR
>
>
>Clearly a warning about content negotiation should be used - because
>XInclude  operates at the syntactic, not functional, level, there is no way
>that
>a content negoatiated resource should be used.  They are if you like
>features you
>just don't use together.


In this week's XML Core WG telcon, we discussed these comments,
but no one on the call could figure out what kind of wording we 
might put into the XInclude spec about content negotiation.

I took the ACTION to ask on these mail lists if either of the
above two quoted authors (or anyone else) had any suggestions.

paul

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Dec/0250
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0265
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 13:29:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:15 GMT