Re: is "foo element(foo/1/3)" a valid xpointer?

My recollection matches Ron's.  In addition to the workaround he shows 
below, you can also use:

element(foo/1/3)xpointer(id(foo))

:-)

	Eve

Ron Daniel wrote:
> I have no recollection of falling back to a shorthand pointer
> ever being discussed.
> 
> I think the BNF is pretty clear. It can be a shorthand pointer, or
> a scheme based one. There is no mixture.
> 
> You could say element(foo/1/3)element(foo) to get a fallback
> behavior.
> 
> Ron 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: www-xml-linking-comments-request@w3.org 
>>[mailto:www-xml-linking-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
>>Paul Grosso
>>Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 2:56 PM
>>To: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
>>
>>
>>At 23:45 2003 04 15 +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 04:21:11PM -0500, Paul Grosso wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In particular, suppose we want to point to element(foo/1/3)
>>>>but fall back to just pointing to the element with id=foo
>>>>if the element scheme isn't supported.  I'd expect to write
>>>>something like:
>>>>
>>>>      href="mydoc.xml#foo element(foo/1/3)"
>>>
>>> Hum, that's the way around, aren't schemes evaluated from
>>>left to right ? That would not work anyway.
>>
>>Ah, you're right about the order.  So what I want to work is:
>>
>>  href="mydoc.xml#element(foo/1/3)foo"
>>
>>
>>>>But reading the BNF at [1], it looks to me like Pointer
>>>>can be either a Shorthand or SchemeBased, but not both,
>>>
>>> that's my understanding too.
>>>
>>>
>>>>and SchemeBased consists of PointerParts that each
>>>>require a SchemeName, so I don't see how what I show
>>>>above can be allowed by this grammar.
>>>
>>> I don't think you can't expect any fallback mechanism 
>>>with the current set of specs if element() is not supported.
>>
>>Well, it's not just if it isn't supported.  It's also if
>>the given element child sequence has a resource error
>>(that is, fails to find an element).  And I really think
>>we want to be able to fall back from element() to shorthand.
>>
>>Does anyone else remember if we did this on purpose or if
>>we meant to allow falling back to a shorthand pointer?
>>
>>paul
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Technologies and Standards               eve.maler @ sun.com

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 19:50:39 UTC