W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Rough sketch for an I-D (a successor of RFC 3023)

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:55:09 +0100
Message-ID: <7112809599.20031102205509@w3.org>
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

On Sunday, November 2, 2003, 7:02:38 PM, Simon wrote:


SSL> Henry Thompson writes:
>>I strongly believe that we need a frag-id syntax for */xml, and that it
>>should be as recommended by the XLink WG as was [1].  I will argue the
>>point in whatever forum is agreed to be appropriate.
>>
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-fragid/#d0e135

SSL> The flaws are architectural, not merely syntactic, and lurk in the
SSL> XPointer Framework itself, making adoption of that document in any form
SSL> a dangerous precendent to future work.

SSL> XPointer should be laid to rest and deprecated rather than considered a
SSL> foundation of any further XML 'progress'.  I would strongly encourage
SSL> the TAG to avoid explicit reference to XPointer in any of its work.

Hi Simon,

I read your message above and was confused, because you chose to base
one of your own specifications on the XPointer framework and schemes.

> This document specifies an xpath1() scheme for use in XPointer-based
> fragment identifiers. This scheme, like other XPointer Framework[11]
> schemes, is designed primarily for use with the XML Media Types
> defined in RFC 3023[5], to identify locations within a given XML
> representation of a resource. The xpath1() scheme uses XPath 1.0
> syntax
http://www.simonstl.com/ietf/draft-stlaurent-xpath-frag-00.html

Or did your scheme avoid the architectural flaws that you see lurking?

-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Sunday, 2 November 2003 14:55:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:02 UTC