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

Re: XPointer: comments on Last Call Working Drafts

From: Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 00:46:43 -0400 (EDT)
To: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@taxonomystrategies.com>
Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Message-id: <3DAF91AD.B0C2E72C@ibiblio.org>




Ron Daniel wrote:
> 
> Thank you for your comments on the xmlns() scheme Last Call draft,
> which are archived at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2002JulSep/0039.html.
> 
> The XML Linking Working Group has collected all the comments on
> the documents and decided what changes to make to the draft. The
> dispositions of your comments are given below. Please reply to
> www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org within one week if you wish to
> make a formal objection to these decisions.

The only point where you disagreed with me was this:

> > "If a pointer part defines a binding for a namespace prefix that
> > already has an entry in the namespace binding context, the new
> > entry overrides the old one."
> >     This sentence should be moved to section 3.4 of the Framework spec.
> 
> Not done.  This is not a constraint on the namespace binding context,
> but a description of the behavior of how the xmlns() scheme interacts
> with it.  A different scheme might behave differently.

Okay. (I had thought there was a logical problem if one scheme said "new
overrides old" and another said "old overrides new" and then you used them
in the same xpointer. But I've changed my mind: the semantics of that
situation are well-defined.)

So: no objections.

-Michael Dyck
Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 12:10:57 GMT

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