- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:55:09 +0100
- 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