- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:05:35 +0200
- To: public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
On 2007-07-12 20:58:17 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> I'm not sure what the most appropriate course of action for the
> RECOMMEND language concerning the #xpointer(/) and
> #xpointer(id('ID')) approaches is. These are currently
> RECOMMENDED, but not defined in a Recommendation.
...
> There would probably be another change to RECOMMEND certain
> element() XPointers (specifically, element(ID) and element(/1),
> where the resource against which the XPointer is evaluated is the
> document that contains the URI attribute), replacing the current
> recommendation for the xpointer() XPointers with equivalent effect.
> I'm, however, a bit wary about these changes; they seem to go
> somewhat far for a PER. I'd welcome feed-back from the group, and
> will also solicit feedback in the Team.
Thinking out loud here, we should be able to *define* the behavior
of #xpointer(id('ID')) and #xpointer(/) in terms of of element()
XPointers, without any resulting in any change in actual
conformance.
The only issue would be that we'd technically be squatting on an
xpointer scheme that is under review, so that would require some
broader community discussion.
Cheers,
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2007 21:05:39 UTC