W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > June 1997

Re: fragment exchange (was Re: rationales for TEIextended-pointer keywords)

From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 13:01:52 +1000
Message-Id: <199706140805.SAA29506@jawa.chilli.net.au>
To: <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>

> From: W. Eliot Kimber <eliot@isogen.com>

> Nothing is "returned"; you don't "get to a document".  Pointers address
> data structures in memory, not literal documents.  

Yeah yeah, but that does not answer my question, at least the one I was trying to ask.

One more try. Let us have linking element:

I traverse that link. I understand the server-end constructs (or has) a grove for that document, and
selects or marks (or whatever) the appropriate nodes as the resource. 

I am in a browser. I expect a replacement text.  In what form does the resource get back to me to 
replace my existing text?  It cannot be XML as it is, because it will not be well-formed, unless we
define some conventions. Are you proposing now some binary grove-to-grove transfers instead?  

> In all of these discussions, it's critical to keep separate the source,
> which is what XML lang (like SGML) defines the rules for, and the parsed
> result of processing that source, which is what XML Link (like HyTime)
> operates on.  Once the documents have been put into memory, issues like
> well-formedness and even validity go away, because those are syntax issues,
> and syntax is transcended once the document is parsed (and only resurface
> when you want to create a new source document).
Yes. But the document is in the memory of the server, and I want my fragment in the memory
of the client. What have I missed?  Is this in fact impossible in XML, and the XPTRs only
allow such fragments to be located and then used on the server?  (That would be fine, but
it is not at all clear.)

Rick Jelliffe
Received on Saturday, 14 June 1997 04:05:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:10 UTC