Re: Link-3: Sets, Singletons, and Determinism

Michael says:
>  On Fri, 23 May 1997 04:59:08 -0400 (EDT) Henry S. Thompson said:
>  >[Discussions about sets of elements, and what xpointers 'return', etc. deleted]
>  >
>  >. . . Span locators identify a pair of points in a document.
>  >End of story.  Nothing is returned.  What applications do with a span
>  >is up to the semantics they implement for their link types.
>  >
>  >See how easy things are if we eliminate processing language [hint, hint :-]
>  
>  With respect, I think the problem here has nothing *at all* to do with
>  whether we use the verb "return" or not.
>  
>  In the document
>  
>    <a id='a'>
>    <b/><c id='c'>stuff</c><d/>
>    </a>
>  
>  what is the pair of 'point's identified by the span "ID(A)..ID(C)"?
>  
>  . . .
>
>  Sheesh.

Sorry to have pushed the wrong buttons.  The aspect of 'returning' I
was worried about was at the top level as it were -- i.e. the problems
we get into in trying to speak about what 'the processor' passes to
'the application'.  I THINK what my answer is is clear given the part of my
comment I reproduce above, with the clarification that (modulo the
pseudo-element question being discussed in another thread :-) by
'point' I mean (singular) resource, i.e. (grove) node designation.  In
the example to hand, that means a pair of nodes, one inside the other.
Whether or not that makes sense is up to the application and the
semantics it attributes to spans.  I don't think it's our business to
rule out a sensible semantics for such a pair a priori.

I also don't think we should rule out "ID(C)..ID(A)" (inside-out) or
backwards spans.  Spans are just a suggestively named way of locating
a pair of resources in a single locator.

ht

Received on Saturday, 24 May 1997 05:40:34 UTC