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

XPointers without requiring xmlns()

From: Keith W. Boone <keith@woc.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:27:54 -0500
To: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LEEOLHFCOBHIBMPBAGGCEENEENAA.keith@woc.org>
> I think that the major argument against the requirement for scheme names
> as QNames are the ease-of-use and aesthetic issues that it imposes on
> schemes defined by organizations other than the W3C.
> I have a proposal that would eliminate the necessity for xmlns() prefix
> definitions to be included as part of an XPointer for a  processor.  It is
> in fact a rather small change to the existing specification:
> Rather than requiring of an XPointer processor that: "The initial
> namespace binding context prior to evaluation of the first pointer part
> consists of a single entry: the xml prefix bound to the namespace name
> http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace. "
> Instead mandate that: "The initial namespace binding context prior to
> evaluation of the first pointer part consists of at least a single entry:
> the xml prefix bound to the namespace name
> http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace.  Additional namespace bindings may
> be configured in the initial context in an implementation specified
> manner."
> That way, Simon's ugly example no longer requires the "xmlns()" part given
> an XPointer implementation that supports configuration of additional
> namespaces.  If someone wanted to use his scheme in a fashion that would
> be compatible across a wider variety of XPointer implementations, then
> they could still include the xmlns() ugliness.  Since using xmlns() in the
> pointer would automatically override any existing definition, there is no
> "compatibility" issue.
> This proposal eliminates the ugliness with a rather simple change to the
> XPointer framework specification, leaving the standardization of the
> implemention to some group that doesn't expire in the current month, yet
> still provides for the same guarantees of uniqueness, to the point of even
> retaining the use of namespaces.
> 	Keith
> 


Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 13:27:59 GMT

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