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

Re: Errors in XPointer Specification

From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:28:02 +0100
To: Michael Dyck <MichaelDyck@home.com>, a.dahmen@infozoom.de
Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20001214122802.G14631@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 11:15:59PM -0800, Michael Dyck wrote:
> Axel Dahmen <a.dahmen@infozoom.de> wrote:
> >
> > I believe to have found two errors in the XPointer Specification 1.0. Since
> > there is no Errata page yet, these might be of interest:
> > 
> > -----------------------------------
> > 
> > Error in 5.4.2:
> > 
> > "The default value is 1, which makes the range start immediately before the
> > first character of the matched string."
> > 
> >         should read:
> > 
> > "... immediately after ..."
> > 
> > according to 5.3.1 ("...a non-zero index n indicates an point immediately
> > after the nth character of the string-value.")
> > 
> > And thus, the default value should be 0.
> 
> By your reference to 5.3.1, you appear to be inferring that the third
> argument of string-range() is (or should be) the value of the 'index'
> property of a point-location, but this is not the case. Yes, the third
> argument does identify a point-location, but not nearly so directly.
> 
> Mind you, it's still a valid opinion that a value of *0* should make the
> range start immediately before the first character of the matched string.
> However, it seems to be an opinion that WG considered and decided against.
> See the second Note in 5.3.1: "The zero-based counting of node-points [and
> analogously, character-points] differs from the one-based counting of
> string-range and other XPointer and XPath functions."

  To the best of my knowledge :-) Michael is right.
Having 1 based indexes was a controversial decision in XPath, but it's how 
the REC is and the Linking WG preferred to keep uniformity of indexes be it
at the node or character level.

> > -----------------------------------
> > 
> > Error in 5.4.3:
> > 
> > point start-point(point)
> > point end-point(point)
> > 
> >         should read:
> > 
> > location-set start-point(location-set)
> > location-set end-point(location-set)
> > 
> > According to the description ("For each location x in the argument
> > location-set, start-point adds a location...").
> 
> Yup. See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2000JulSep/0072.html
> and
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2000JulSep/0147.html

  right this was acknoledged and changed in the new draft,

Daniel

-- 
Daniel.Veillard@w3.org | W3C, INRIA Rhone-Alpes  | libxml Gnome XML toolkit
Tel : +33 476 615 257  | 655, avenue de l'Europe | http://xmlsoft.org/
Fax : +33 476 615 207  | 38330 Montbonnot FRANCE | Rpmfind search site
 http://www.w3.org/People/all#veillard%40w3.org  | http://rpmfind.net/
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2000 06:28:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:41 GMT