W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org > May 2001

FW: XInclude Last Call WD 16 May 2001 comments

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:37:15 -0700
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59CDA91FE@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org>
Cc: <sarowe@textwise.com>


Thanks, I'll try to forward it myself...

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Rowe [mailto:sarowe@textwise.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 8:05 AM
To: Jonathan Marsh
Subject: FW: XInclude Last Call WD 16 May 2001 comments

Mr. Marsh,

I have twice attempted to send the following message to the comments
list for XInclude (on 5/18 and on 5/22).  Other messages have appeared
since, so the list appears to be selectively (and silently) dropping
my messages (and maybe others'?).

As others have noted, the latest WD is very well written;
congratulations to you and your group.

Steve Rowe
MNIS-TextWise Labs

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Rowe [mailto:sarowe@textwise.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 12:09 PM
To: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
Subject: XInclude Last Call WD 16 May 2001 comments


Hello,

Following is a set of small issues concerning the latest XInclude
working draft.

1. I had to re-read section 4.1 (The Include Location) several times
to understand that the encoding/escaping mechanism described applies
only to the URI which must be presented to the URI resolver, and not
to the literal IURI value of the "href" attribute.  Suggested
resolution: add section 4.1.1, under which the entire
encoding/escaping discussion would be placed, so that the distinction
between the two is made more clear.

2. In the first sentence of section 4.4.1, "source infoset" should be
"result infoset".

3. In the third sentence of the first paragraph of section 1, and in
the second sentence of the first paragraph of section 4.4.3,
"proposal" should be "specification" or "recommendation".

4. I previously suggested changes to the C.2 range inclusion example;
upon more careful reading of the XPointer WD, I think that it still
has problems.  The XPointer WD says that the third and fourth
arguments to the "string-range" function default to the character
points just before and just after the matched second argument string,
respectively.  If specified, they are a start point and a character
length, with the 1-based start point being relative to the character
point just before the matched second argument string.  As currently
written, the example would result in:

   ...
   <p><i>Sentence 3.  Sentenc</i></p>
   ...

instead of the expected:

   ...
   <p><i>Sentence 3.</i></p>
   ...

Suggested resolution: either remove the third and fourth argument (so
that the end-point would default to just after '3.'), or change the
fourth argument (specifying the character length) to 2.  The latter is
illustrated below:

   ...
   range-to(string-range(chapter/p[2]/i,'3.',1,2)))"/>
   ...

5. Although it looks like it won't make it into this version of
XInclude, it would be useful for XInclude to describe an extension to
XML Infoset which would allow for the "infosets" accepted by XPath and
XPointer, such as those which would result from parsing an external
parsed entity file, which might have multiple top-level
elements/character data/comments/PIs.  XInclude's inability to address
into XML serializations which are addressable by XPointer seems overly
strict, especially since XInclude doesn't constrain the infoset
construction method.  My guess is that this is so only because a
decision was reached not to extend the Infoset for this version.  Too
bad.

Hope it helps,

Steve Rowe
MNIS-TextWise Labs
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 13:14:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:56 UTC