W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org > July 2002

RE: Comments on XInclude

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 12:45:40 -0700
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59C06CCAD67@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>, <www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org>

The XML Core WG has received a number of comments on XPointer support in
XInclude, most suggesting some sort of XPointer subset.  The recent
factoring of XPointer has given the WG the opportunity to simplify
XInclude implementation without creating our own subset of XPointer.
The WG has decided to require support for the XPointer Framework [1],
and the XPointer element() Scheme [2].  Support for the XPointer
xpointer() Scheme [3] and other schemes developed in the future would be
optional.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-element/
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-xpointer/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger L. Costello [mailto:costello@mitre.org]
> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 8:31 AM
> To: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
> Cc: costello@mitre.org
> Subject: Comments on XInclude
> 
> 1. The DTD shown in the document is inconsistent with the schema.
> 
> 2. Why show the DTD when you already show a much more powerful and
> expressive XML Schema?
> 
> 3. The Schema shows the <include> element as being able to contain
> elements/data other than <fallback>.  The spec does not define what
> happens to those elements/data upon include, e.g.,
> 
>     <xi:include href="foo.xml">
>        blah, blah <bar>blah</bar>
>     </xi:include>
> 
> Is blah, blah <bar>blah</bar> replaced by the contents of foo.xml upon
> include? Is it juxtaposed with the contents of foo.xml? etc
> 
> 4. You do not define a serialized syntax (i.e., what a text document
> would look like after inclusion).  You only define an infoset model.
> Big mistake, IMHO.  Suppose that on a server I have an XML document
> which contains <include> elements.  I wish to resolve those includes
and
> send the expanded (serialized) document to a client (as a text/string
> document).  No way to do it, with this spec.  Example: in the
> text/serialized version should the top-level included elements have a
> fixed attribute, included="true"?  The infoset should have this
> attribute (e.g., a DOM tree might be able to supply this information),
> but should the serialized string have this attribute?
> 
> 5.  IMHO, you should just allow xPath expressions, and not allow full
> xPointer expressions. (80/20 rule)
> 
> 6. Are there any xInclude processors available yet?
> 
> My 2 cents.  /Roger
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 15:46:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:09:31 UTC