- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:11:04 -0500
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Norman Walsh [mailto:ndw@nwalsh.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 2011 November 16 13:55 > To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: XInclude @xpointer when parse="text" > > "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> writes: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, 2011 November 16 11:44 > >> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > >> Subject: XInclude @xpointer when parse="text" > > > >> At the f2f, we outlined three possible choices: > >> > >> 1. allow use of the @xpointer attribute when parse=text > >> 2. add a new "@textptr" attribute to use when parse=text > >> 3. add a new "@fragid" attribute to use in all cases and > >> possibly deprecate the @xpointer attribute > > > > What would be the value of the attribute in any of these cases > > when parse=text? Would it be just a single fragment identifier > > conforming to RFC 5147? Or would it follow some sort of > > xpointer syntax that allows for multiple schemes? And if the > > latter, do we need to have a scheme name for the RFC 5147 syntax? > > Interesting question. I implemented it as a text() scheme. I suppose > if we added a @textptr attribute, I'd be inclined to just say it had > to include an RFC 5147 fragment identifier. > > > If there is only one way (5147) to address into a text resource, > > then I'm not sure there's a point to allowing multiple schemes, > > but then #1 would appear problematic unless we say that the > > @xpointer attribute has different syntax depending on the value > > of @parse. That would cause me to prefer #2. > > If we say 1, I think we should assert that the "text()" scheme > implements it. Having the syntax be dependent on the parse attribute > is ugly. If we go with #1, how do you interpret: xpointer="element(/1/3)text(...)" parse="text" which would be valid syntax. Do we just say that any scheme other than text() fails when parse="text"? paul > > Speaking of ugly, if we go with (2), I want the presence of @textptr > to imply parse=text. I think. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh > Lead Engineer > MarkLogic Corporation > Phone: +1 413 624 6676 > www.marklogic.com
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:11:32 UTC