W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: XPointer ranges cost effective?

From: Steve DeRose <Steven_DeRose@brown.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:15:09 -0500
Message-Id: <v03110706b497df0b211d@[209.244.86.84]>
To: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
At 9:30 AM -0500 12/31/99, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>Ranges could be supported at a higher level, as a kind of extended link.

I and others have shown many reasons why this is not the case. Check the
archives. If you can solve the known problems, great; short of that, those
problems remain unaddressed, which I should think means your proposal needs
rather more rason d'etre than you have provided.

>
>It is not clear why pointing to two locations belongs to XPointer rather
>than XLink. That seems more an architectural decision rather than one

I beg to differ; it seems awfully clear if you read the list or archives.
Can we see some solutions proposed to the specific known problems?

>Implementors who want simple links and do not need ranges may avoid
>XPointer and use html:a or smil:a or just implement Xpaths. That would
>be unfortunate.

Anyone who does simple links without supporting ranges will likely be
laughed out of the market very shortly, when all their users start
screaming because they drag-selected something and ended up with a link to
something *else*.

S

Steven_DeRose@Brown.edu; http://www.stg.brown.edu/~sjd
Chief Scientist, Scholarly Technology Group, and
   Adjunct Associate Professor, Brown University
Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2000 15:15:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:40 GMT