W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Trouble Ahead: Normative references to 2001 XPointer CR.

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:27:29 -0400
Message-Id: <83873903-326E-4512-95CF-23B379FFB288@nokia.com>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org
To: ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>

does the XPointer framework REC describe the #xpointer(id('ID')) usage

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

On Jul 12, 2007, at 5:05 PM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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 Friday, 13 July 2007 13:28:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:40 UTC