W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: Architectural problems of the XInclude CR

From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 06:19:43 +0900
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: "'Elliotte Rusty Harold'" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <20021231060841.EBD5.EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>


> Murato,

Thanks for your invention, but my given name is Makoto and my family name is Murata.

> XInclude doesn't misinterpret the frag identifiers. The frag identifiers are
> indeed authoritative.  It simply that the content is viewed as a different
> media type.  Kind of like Casting in programming languages.

I think that this casting is not allowed by the WWW architecture.  I would 
ask the TAG to review the XInclude CR and make a decision.

> I don't believe that the architecture of the web precludes clients
> interpreting the representations in ways other than the resource owner
> intended via the metadata associated with the representation.  They should
> do so carefully.  And I think XInclude treads the ground carefully.

Actually, I am sympathetic with this argument.  I am not sure the WWW 
architecture is right.

I still do not understand why fragment identifiers are part of URI references 
and their interpretation is controlled by media types.  If we did not have 
fragment identifiers at all, XInlude would have specified XPointer-like 
information by elements and attributes (without using the ugly xmlns scheme) 
and we would not have any problems.  Are fragment identifiers merely harmful?


MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>
Received on Monday, 30 December 2002 16:19:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:08:14 UTC