W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: Last call announcement for various XPointer related specs

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:28:02 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20020718093744.024cabf8@localhost>
To: Ronald Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Cc: "'w3c-xml-linking-wg@w3.org'" <w3c-xml-linking-wg@w3.org>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org

Hello Ron,

Many thanks for your quick response, and for moving in the
right direction.

At 11:46 02/07/17 -0700, Ronald Daniel wrote:
>Hi Martin,
>
>The XML Linking Working Group discussed your message [1]
>during our conference call earlier today.
>
>The material in question had been removed deliberately,
>since the only escaping we can normatively specify
>is the '^' for escaping unbalanced parentheses in XPointer
>pointer parts. All the other escaping is normatively
>specified in other documents. On re-examination, the
>group agrees that a lot of that information, while
>non-normative, is still very useful.

I have checked the normative/non-normative distinction.

I mostly, but not fully agree with your qualification.

In particular, even the original text at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-xptr-20010911/#escaping
does not make one particular issue clear:

If you get an URI reference such as
    doc.xml#xpointer(string-range(//P,%22a%20little%20hat%20%5E%5E%22))
or
    doc.xml#xpointer(id('r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9'))
then the URI spec says that you get the fragment identifier by
taking the part after the '#', and tells you that %C3 represents
the *byte* 0xc3. But the URI spec doesn't tell you that %C3%A9,
in the context of an XPointer, is to be interpreted as an e-acute.
This *has to be* specified by each URI scheme, and each fragment
identifier type, independently, and of course normatively. Because
of this, the sentence

    "The XPointer-processor handles undoing A. All other escaping is
    undone (in reverse order of application) outside the processor."

is at least misleading, and probably wrong. You get most of what
you need (except some small bit of error handling: what to do
with %hh sequences that cannot be interpreted as utf-8) by making
4.1.2 normative.

For the rest, I agree to move the material to an appendix.

Regards,   Martin.


>The group decided to provide the material as a non-normative
>appendix in the next version of the XPointer Framework
>document. Between now and then we will be examining it
>in light of the most recent IURI documents to see if any
>changes are needed.
>
>Thanks for bringing this up, I think the spec will be
>more useful as a result.
>
>Best regards,
>Ron Daniel Jr.
>
>[1]
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2002JulSep/0012
>.html
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org]
> > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 8:52 PM
> > To: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
> > Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org; w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Last call announcement for various XPointer related specs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello Paul, Ronald,
> >
> > I just had a quick look at your new documents.
> > It seems that one very important section from the previous version,
> > namely "4.1 Character Escaping"
> > (http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-xptr-20010911/#escaping)
> > has fallen between the cracks. This section is extremely important
> > for I18N. If I have missed it, please tell me where to find it.
> >
> > If it has been lost inadvertedly, it may be worth considering to
> > asap issue an updated version of http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/,
> > where I think it can be easily integrated, probably as Section 3.2
> > (moving the current 3.2,... up), to make sure that the spec can
> > be reviewed in its entirety. Some small editorial changes
> > (such as IURI -> IRI) may be needed but could be deferred to the
> > next stage.
> >
> > I very much hope this section has not been removed on purpose.
> >
> > Regards,    Martin.
> >
> >
> > At 09:06 02/07/11 -0500, Paul Grosso wrote:
> >
> > >[Sorry, resending with the correct subject this time. paul]
> > >
> > >The XML Linking WG announces Last Call on the following
> > >three drafts:
> > >    XPointer Framework [1]
> > >    XPointer element() Scheme [2]
> > >    XPointer xmlns Scheme() [3]
> > >
> > >These drafts, in combination with the working draft
> > >    XPointer xpointer() Scheme  [4],
> > >provide basically the same functionality as the XPointer CR
> > >draft[5] of 2001-09-11.  The only new functionality is to
> > >allow XML Schema declaration of ID-type attributes, in
> > >addition to DTD declarations. Primarily, the XPointer
> > >draft has been factored into multiple documents so that
> > >XPointer support will be easier to implement than as a
> > >monolithic specification.
> > >
> > >The decision to go to Last Call is minuted at [6].
> > >The last call review period ends July 31. Comment should be
> > >sent to www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org.
> > >
> > >Unless the review uncovers substantial problems, the next step
> > >will be to recommend the documents for publication as Candidate
> > >Recommendations or Proposed Recommendations, depending on the
> > >level of implementation experience. (The framework draft, in
> > >particular, may avoid a second CR period because of its
> > >simplicity, the way that a number of other W3C specs
> > >rely only on the functionality from XPointer it provides,
> > >and because of existing implementation experience.)
> > >
> > >Paul Grosso for
> > >Ron Daniel Jr.
> > >Acting chair, XML Linking WG
> > >
> > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/
> > >[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-element/
> > >[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-xmlns/
> > >[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-xpointer/
> > >[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-xptr-20010911/
> > >[6]
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-linking-wg/2002May/0146
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 22:25:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:44 GMT