- From: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@taxonomystrategies.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:11:00 -0700
- To: "'Paul Grosso'" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
I have no recollection of falling back to a shorthand pointer ever being discussed. I think the BNF is pretty clear. It can be a shorthand pointer, or a scheme based one. There is no mixture. You could say element(foo/1/3)element(foo) to get a fallback behavior. Ron > > -----Original Message----- > From: www-xml-linking-comments-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-xml-linking-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > Paul Grosso > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 2:56 PM > To: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > > > At 23:45 2003 04 15 +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 04:21:11PM -0500, Paul Grosso wrote: > > > >> 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. > > Ah, you're right about the order. So what I want to work is: > > href="mydoc.xml#element(foo/1/3)foo" > > >> 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. > > Well, it's not just if it isn't supported. It's also if > the given element child sequence has a resource error > (that is, fails to find an element). And I really think > we want to be able to fall back from element() to shorthand. > > Does anyone else remember if we did this on purpose or if > we meant to allow falling back to a shorthand pointer? > > paul >
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 18:11:05 UTC