RE: Comments on XPTR Framework

Great. Could I ask you to resend your reply, cc'ing
the www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org list?

Thanks,
Ron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith W. Boone [mailto:keith@woc.org] 
> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 1:47 PM
> To: Ron Daniel
> Subject: RE: Comments on XPTR Framework
> 
> 
> Sounds good [to make a nod in that direction in the XPointer 
> spec instead of
> the framework].
> 
> 	Keith
> 
> Engineering is what happens when science and
> mathematics meet politics.  Products are what
> happens when all three meet reality.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Daniel [mailto:rdaniel@taxonomystrategies.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 11:49 AM
> To: keith@woc.org
> Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org; w3c-xml-linking-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Comments on XPTR Framework
> 
> 
> > From: Keith W. Boone [mailto:keith@woc.org]
> > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 6:48 AM
> > To: Ron Daniel
> > Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org; w3c-xml-linking-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Comments on XPTR Framework
> >
> > Sorry, you missed my intent on that one, which was to have
> > the spec clarify
> > that the variable bindings and function library should be
> > considered as part
> > of the context, without necessarily specifying how they get
> > updated.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. The problem is that variable
> bindings and function library are specific to XPath, and schemes
> closely related to it like the xpointer() scheme.
> Other schemes that may come along in the future will need
> different information in the context.
> 
> The group talked about this, and decided the best course of
> action was for the FRAMEWORK spec to not say anything that
> ruled out the XPath variable bindings and function library,
> but not to say anything that priviledged XPath-related schemes
> over any other schemes which will need different information
> in the context.
> 
> The XPOINTER() scheme draft, on the other hand, would say
> more about those specific items in the context (although we
> had decided to rule out the use of variables, and particularly
> extension functions, in the interests of interoperability).
> We would be more inclined to make normative statements about
> handling XPath evalution context items in that spec than in
> the framework spec.
> 
> > Motivation for the comment was that I plan on having a number
> > of canned
> > XPath queries, where parts of the query are supplied by
> > variables stored in
> > the execution context, and I'd like to see the spec at least
> > nod in the
> > direction that XPath implementations have already headed.
> 
> I can understand that, but this seems more appropriate
> in documents other than the framework spec, which needs
> to apply to all pointer schemes.
> 
> Best regards,
> Ron Daniel
> Acting chair, XML Linking WG
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 19:51:36 UTC