- From: Ronald Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:43:25 -0700
- To: "'jeni@jenitennison.com'" <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: "'www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
Hi, On Apr. 13 you asked about the definition of equal points in the XPointer draft. Very sorry for the tardiness of this reply. The XML Linking WG has just released a new version of the XPointer specification. It factors the original XPointer document into separate documents for: schemes framework http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/ xmlns scheme http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-xmlns/ basic element addressing scheme http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-element/ full xpointer scheme http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-xpointer/ All the drafts are last-call WDs, except for the xpointer() scheme. It is a working draft, and the issue of equality of points is the main technical issue we will be addressing before advancing it to last call. I can't guarantee what solution we will come up with, but the current leading candidate is the 'recursive definition' given in Michael Dyck's comments on the XPointer spec: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2002JanMar/0030 .html If you have the time and inclination, we would be interested in your opinion of that approach. Thanks for your careful examination of the CR draft, I hope you will be able to review the new documents as carefully. Best regards, Ron Daniel Jr. acting chair, XML Linking WG
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2002 10:44:03 UTC