W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Architectural problems of the XInclude CR

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:32:42 -0500
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
cc: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <r01050400-1023-126DDCB93AEC11D7AEE50003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

This disposition is fine with me.  I'm still not comfortable with
overriding the usual rules, but making that explicit is a substantial
improvement over prior versions.  I look forward to seeing the complete
draft.


jmarsh@microsoft.com (Jonathan Marsh) writes:
>Disposition of your comments by the WG below:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
>> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 11:53 AM
>> To: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
>> Cc: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org;
www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org;
>> www-tag@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Architectural problems of the XInclude CR
>
>
>> Things that "XInclude per se could or should do":
>> 
>> * Mention content negotiation and its potential impact on XInclude
>> processing.
>
>I have added a section on content negotiation using an edited version
of
>the text you originally proposed on this thread.
>
>> * Explain the relationship between "text" and "xml" and the MIME
Media
>> Type identifiers commonly used on the Web, and explain why XInclude
>uses
>> this approach rather than the more Web-like approach.  
>
>I now mention that this overrides the usual rules.  I also clarified
>that XInclude gives the author priority over the media type instead of
>the server to enable features such as the textual inclusion of XML for
>display as examples.
>
>> "Coercion to
>> text/xml" may be appropriate, but it's an unusual approach for the
Web
>-
>> and no such coercion is mentioned for text.  It's especially
>intriguing
>> that XInclude references RFC 3023 _only_ in the context of
determining
>> the character encoding of content to be included when parse="text".
>
>The rules we describe for determining character encoding are slightly
>different than those for text/plain, in order to facilitate the
>inclusion of working XML examples.  That is, you use the (more
accurate)
>XML rules when you have already determined that the resource is XML.
>Describing text inclusion as coercion to text/plain isn't completely
>accurate.
>
>> * Explain explicitly how its reading of URI references overrides the
>> usual "MIME media type provides context for fragment identifier
>> processing" rules that generally apply to Web content.
>
>Done, as indicated above.
>
>- Jonathan
>
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 17:31:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:16:09 GMT