- From: Eve L. Maler <eve.maler@sun.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:46:33 -0400
- To: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@taxonomystrategies.com>
- Cc: "'Paul Grosso'" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
My recollection matches Ron's. In addition to the workaround he shows below, you can also use: element(foo/1/3)xpointer(id(foo)) :-) Eve Ron Daniel wrote: > 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 >> > > > -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441 Web Technologies and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 19:50:39 UTC