RE: Unecessary dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML Schema

>I have already ellaborated on xml-dev and www-xml-linking-comments

Did you receive a reply from the XML Linking WG to your comment?  If so
can you provide us with the URL of their response?  

If not then why do you think the TAG should take up this matter until
the Linking WG has responded?

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
<mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com> 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@dyomedea.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 10:15 AM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Unecessary dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML
Schema
> 
> 
> I'd like to bring the issue of uncessary dependence between W3C specs
as
> illustrated by XPointer.
> 
> I have already ellaborated on xml-dev and www-xml-linking-comments,
but
> to make it short, XPointer is defining that when I write
"foo.xml#bar",
> there is no need to specify how to associate "foo.xml" with any schema
> (it's up to the application to do so) to determine wich id will be
used
> but that this schema must be either a DTD or a W3C XML Schema (the
list
> is norminative).
> 
> To me, this dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML Schema is
> useless and harmfull.
> 
> If we leave the application free to choose any document as a schema,
the
> fragment identified by "foo.xml#bar" is de facto depending on an
> informal agreement between the "client" and the "server" of the
fragment
> (client and server beeing taken in the liberal sense where the
"client"
> might be a XHTML page on a server and the "server" might be the
browser
> in which this page is displaid) and undertermined if such an agreement
> is missing.
> 
> If we rely on a non specified agreement, what need is there to require
> that only a DTD or a W3c XML Schema can be used to express this
> agreement?
> 
> A "hard coded" agreement that the id is the concatenation of
attributes
> "id1" and "id2" could work as well, or any other generic or specific
way
> to define what's the id is...
> 
> Beyong the fact that I disagree on this specific case, I think that a
> good practice would be to reduce the amount of unecessary dependences
> between specs!
> 
> To come back to XPointer and without even mentioning that other
> organizations might define ways to define IDs, if the W3C needed to
> define one for a specific case in 2 years time, this would require a
new
> edition of XPointer which can easily be avoided by making the list non
> normative...
> 
> Thanks for your attention,
> 
> Eric
> 
> See also:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-
> comments/2002OctDec/0021.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-
> comments/2002JulSep/0047.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-
> comments/2002JulSep/0029.html
> 
> 
> --
> Rendez-vous a Paris (Forum XML).
>
http://www.technoforum.fr/integ2002/index.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org
http://dyomedea.com
> (W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1
http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Thursday, 24 October 2002 17:30:21 UTC