RE: Architectural problems of the XInclude CR

Murato,

XInclude doesn't misinterpret the frag identifiers. The frag identifiers are
indeed authoritative.  It simply that the content is viewed as a different
media type.  Kind of like Casting in programming languages.

I don't believe that the architecture of the web precludes clients
interpreting the representations in ways other than the resource owner
intended via the metadata associated with the representation.  They should
do so carefully.  And I think XInclude treads the ground carefully.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
> Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 3:02 PM
> To: Elliotte Rusty Harold
> Cc: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org; www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org;
> www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Architectural problems of the XInclude CR
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:09:33 -0500
> Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > How then do you propose to handle the use-case of including a
> > text/xml or application/xml document as an example in a book like
> > Processing XML with Java?
>
> As I wrote in my previous mail, I do not oppose to textual
> inclusion of
> text/xml or application/xml MIME entities.  I oppose to
> misinterpretation of
> interpret fragment identifiers.
>
> --
> MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>
>
>

Received on Monday, 30 December 2002 12:52:47 UTC