RE: XPointer [was: First Draft of summary of TAG issue abstractComponentRefs-37]

I think Chris Lilley's message covers this pretty well [1].

Cheers,
Dave

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Apr/0065.html
  -----Original Message-----
  From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
Christopher B Ferris
  Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 10:12 AM
  To: Paul Grosso
  Cc: www-tag@w3.org; www-tag-request@w3.org
  Subject: Re: XPointer [was: First Draft of summary of TAG issue
abstractComponentRefs-37]



  Paul,

  Yes, it is. Please see [1]. There probably should be something done about
the
  URIs because many people will rush to the same conclusion... the names of
the
  specs have changed.

  [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/

  Cheers,

  Christopher Ferris
  Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
  email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
  phone: +1 508 234 3624

  www-tag-request@w3.org wrote on 04/10/2003 10:15:43 AM:

  >
  > At 21:59 2003 04 09 -0700, dorchard@bea wrote:
  >
  > >4. Use full XPointer.  The sample URI is
  >
>http://airline.wsdl/ticketagent/#xmlns((w=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/)
x
  >
>pointer(//w:portType[@name="TicketAgent"]/w:operation[@name="listFlights"]/
w
  > >:input[@name="listFlightsRequest"])
  > >
  > >Pros:
  > >- re-use XPointer syntax, which is a rec
  >
  > No, it [1] is not.
  >
  > It is not even at Last Call yet, and there is no currently
  > existing working group responsible for working on it.
  >
  > paul
  >
  > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xptr-xpointer-20021219/
  >