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

Re: [Minutes] 20 Oct 2003 TAG teleconf (abstractComponentRefs-37, URI Syntax, RFC 3023)

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:52:15 +0200
Message-ID: <15719207318.20031024045215@w3.org>
To: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
Cc: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org

On Thursday, October 23, 2003, 6:53:45 PM, Henry wrote:


HST> "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> writes:

>>    [Ian]
>>           DO: I'm not sure that we would recommend xpointer to wsdl wg
>>           even if we said parens ok. Do we want a finding on good URI
>>           practices?
>>           CL, TB: Yes.
>>           [TB seeks title for issue regarding URI design]
>>
>>    [ChrisL]
>>           [21]http://www.w3.org/XML/Linking has no link to an
>>           implementation report
>>
>>      [21] http://www.w3.org/XML/Linking

HST> I will respond at greater length in due course on the vexed question
HST> of balanced parentheses in URIs, but the above comment needs to be
HST> rebutted more quickly, if it is intended to be an assertion that
HST> XPointer is unimplemented, hence a bad precedent.

It is not intended to be such an assertion. Indeed, I am aware of
several implementations and IIRC I read about them in an
implementation report (and on the xml-linking list, too).

But, in the course of the TAG discussions, I went looking for it and
could not find it. I wanted to check on specific details. In a running
discussion, if you can't find the info and quickly, then you can't use
it in the argument.

I was troubled by Roy's assertion that parens in fragids were illegal
and contrary to the BNF for a URI. This was being discussed in the
context of WSDL fragids; I pointed out that if the TAG as a whole took
the position that these were architecturally broken, then we were
saying that the following W3C Recs were broken:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-element/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-xmlns/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-xpointer/
http://www.w3.org/TR/smil20/
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/

In other words, I wanted us to be very sure before making such an
assertion.


HST> It does, however, include a pointer to an implementation report [1],
HST> which Chris must have just missed,

Yes, I did. Thanks for pointing it out.

HST> a few lines down from the top, with the words "Check the
HST> Implementation Chart." It cites a substantial number of
HST> implementations.

HST> (Note that the XML Linking WG was wound up 8 months ago, and that page
HST> is not being maintained.)

HST> The decision to go to PR and REC with XPointer was supported by a
HST> contextualised version of the XPointer part of that report [2].

Thanks for the pointers, Henry. Please rest assured that I was not
making a process point about the activities of the XML Linking WG.

HST> [1] http://www.w3.org/XML/2000/09/LinkingImplementations.html
HST> [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/2002/10/LinkingImplementations.html



-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2003 22:52:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:22 GMT