- From: Eve L. Maler <eve.maler@east.sun.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:17:14 -0500
- To: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Forwarding with Mark's permission. >Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 03:30:00 +0200 >From: Polman <polman@few.eur.nl> >To: "Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@east.sun.com> >Subject: Re: Xpointer Questions > > > If you do not accept our resolution on any item, please let us know by > > responding to this message. We are on a tight schedule, so please respond > > by 28 March. > >I am very pleased with the proposed changes, except for the fact that I >do >not quite understand why the siblings of a point have to be defined. >It seems to me that they are without any function in the specs. > >On second reading of the document, I have some final details: > >1) In the definition of a node-point, the following phrase occurs: >"...(that is, when the container node is an element node or a root >node)..." >According to the DOM spec, an attribute node can have children, too. >(at least I thought so). Is a point with an attribute node as its >container >node automatically a character point? > >2) Also, it is stated that "The string value of a point location is >empty" >Does this mean "" or null? > >3) Finally, in the definition of the "string-range()" function, can the >third >and fourth argument be negative? It might be useful to indicate this >explicitly. >Also, the phrase: ..."or if the third or fourth argument indicates a >position >that is beyond the beginning or end of the document..." does not seem >correct. >It appears to me that the most they can do is to "point" outside the >string-value >of the location (which indeed should result in failure). > >Cheers > >--MP-- -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems XML Technology Development eve.maler @ east.sun.com
Received on Monday, 26 March 2001 11:15:51 UTC