Re: xinclude fails to use URI syntax for referring to resources?

On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 17:16, Dan Connolly wrote:
> Regarding...
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xinclude-20031110/
> 
> I'm sorry to say that I haven't read it in detail,
> but I learned from a last call announcement that
> 
> "the optional fragment identifier has been removed from the href
> attribute and is now specifiable
> via a new xpointer attribute."
> 
> This seems to introduce a way of pointing from one
> resource to another without using URI references.
> 
> This seems like a bad idea, from the perspective
> of Web Architecture.

After discussion with the TAG
  http://www.w3.org/2003/11/15-tag-summary.html#xincl
I've changed my mind... it seems like an OK idea...
XInclude isn't a normal application of XML; it's
a bit of infrastructure, like XML Base, so it
can do things that seem, at a glance, to be
counter to the "Use URIs" principle.

I would like the XInclude spec to cite the
webarch "Use URIs" principle and give a paragraph
of explanation why URIs aren't used in the
usual way.

p.s. was my 10 Nov message received? Anybody home?

> There's a principle that I'm working on in the TAG,
> somewhere between
> 
> "A URI SHOULD be assigned to each resource that is intended to be
> identified, shared, or described by reference."
> 
>   -- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#identification
> 
> If a URI has been assigned to a resource, Web agents SHOULD refer to the
> resource using the same URI, character for character.
>   -- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#identifiers-comparison
> 
> which is basically: to refer from one thing to
> another in the Web, use URI reference syntax.
> 
> I suppose qnames introduce another sort of URI reference
> syntax... but so long as they work like URI references,
> i.e. they're just shorthand for URIs, I suppose they're
> manageable.
> 
> Is this 'new xpointer attribute' a shorthand for
> a full URI?
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Monday, 1 December 2003 11:42:38 UTC