Re: is "foo element(foo/1/3)" a valid xpointer?

On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 04:21:11PM -0500, Paul Grosso wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure who I expect to answer, but here goes.
> 
> Did we mean for the Framework spec to allow for a
> shorthand (aka barename) along with more schemes?
> 
> I would have thought so.

  Hum, I don't think so. Basically the shorthand was
designed to not break XHTML pointers it was always 
a separate mechanism for me at least.

> In particular, suppose we want to point to element(foo/1/3)
> but fall back to just pointing to the element with id=foo
> if the element scheme isn't supported.  I'd expect to write
> something like:
> 
> 	href="mydoc.xml#foo element(foo/1/3)"

  Hum, that's the way around, aren't schemes evaluated from
left to right ? That would not work anyway.

> But reading the BNF at [1], it looks to me like Pointer
> can be either a Shorthand or SchemeBased, but not both,

  that's my understanding too.

> and SchemeBased consists of PointerParts that each
> require a SchemeName, so I don't see how what I show
> above can be allowed by this grammar.

  I don't think you can't expect any fallback mechanism 
with the current set of specs if element() is not supported.

> [No, I don't want to go anywhere near the xpointer scheme,
> so that is not an answer for me.]

  Well if you don't have element() and don't have xpointer()
support, then I don't think you have anything better in term of
addressing capabilities than the legacy ID based one inherited
from (X)HTML with the current set of specifications.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@redhat.com  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 17:45:07 UTC