- From: Wayne Gramlich <Gramlich@JPS.Net>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:04:41 -0800
- To: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
All: The CritSuite team (http://crit.org/) is very encouraged by the great work that has been done on the XLink and XPointer standards so far. However, there are two issues with the requirements that we feel are quite important and would like to draw to your attention. 1. We are concerned about linking to documents that are embedded in a frameset context. Although framesets have broken the simple linking model of HTML, they are popular with sufficiently many websites that being able to work with them is important. We would like to see an explicit requirement in the XLink requirements document that says something like this: An XML link must be able to express traversal to an end in a document within a frameset context. The operational requirement that we would like XLink to satisfy is that an individual could select a span of text in a document within a frameset, send a representative XLink to a friend, and have the friend brought to the same document in the same context with the same span of text highlighted. Note that we are not necessarily suggesting that the context be specified as part of the locator. Indeed, it is better for the locator to specify just the true link end itself, and to specify the frameset context as part of the traversal behaviour of the link. Thus it would belong under the "Remote Resource Semantics" section of the XLink draft. It is also possible to solve this problem by allowing the document itself to specify the frameset context under which it prefers to be presented. Regardless of how the problem is solved, however, we feel it is important that XLink be able to work with a standard solution. Otherwise, we expect that a number of ad hoc and incompatible solutions for linking to framed documents will arise, which would be a very unfortunate situation. 2. We are concerned about linking to spans of text within documents. The XPointer requirements document specifies in section C.2 that All XPointers must survive purely mechanical changes to the target resource. and goes on to describe mechanical changes within the SGML tags themselves. We would like to go a little further and make it more clear that XPointers should also be as tolerant as possible of mechanical changes to whitespace in the document text. Many authoring tools manipulate such whitespace freely where it has no effect on the rendering of the document. We propose the following requirement for addition to the "Robustness" section: It should be possible to create an XPointer for a span of text in a document that survives typical methods of editing the document. The operational requirement that we would like XPointer to satisfy is that one could be given an XPointer referring to a span of text in a document, and expect it to work the same way on two documents that appear and behave identically when rendered; and one could copy and paste a region of text surrounding the span, and expect the XPointer to point out the same span of words in the pasted text. Thank you very much for your consideration of these issues. The CritSuite Team.
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 1999 22:02:39 UTC