Re: SVG12: shorthand pointer defintion vs XPointer

On Tuesday, June 6, 2006, 5:41:30 PM, Boris wrote:

BZ> Chris Lilley wrote:
>>> * Chris Lilley wrote:
>>>> Bjoern Hoehrmann <>  wrote
>>>>> refers
>>>>> to the XML 1.0 Name production for shorthand pointers; this is incom-
>>>>> patible with the XPointer framework which uses NS 1.0 NCNames. Please
>>>>> refer to the XPointer framework for the definition of this form.
>>>> You are correct, and we have adjusted the reference to point to NS 1.0 NCNames.
>>> Please cite technical rationale for rejecting my request, then.
>> Sense it makes not. Mysterious, it is.

BZ> Bjoern makes the following request:

BZ>    SVG spec refers to Foo while XPointer spec refers to Bar.  Please make the
BZ>    SVG spec refer to the XPointer spec.

BZ> SVG Working Group makes the following response:

BZ>    We have changed the SVG spec to refer to Bar.

BZ> There is no mention of XPointer in the reply.  This is clearly not
BZ> what Bjoern requested, no?

He pointed out an error - that the grammar for an SVG fragment used XML
Name instead of NCName. We fixed this.

Yes, its true, instead of saying

NCName: see (definition of NCName)

we could have said

NCName: this is defined the same way as its defined in specification
Bar, which is by reference to specification Foo, but we aren't going to
give you a direct link to Foo because we like to make the reader do more

We didn't think this was a useful way to do it though. As Bjoern says,
XMLNS 1.0 is the defining specification. That's what we point to.

BZ>   Hence his question why his request was rejected.

Its a strikingly creative use of "rejected".

 Chris Lilley          
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 19:49:24 UTC