W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org > March 2003

Re: Architectural problems of the XInclude CR

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:20:35 +0100
Message-ID: <9516600656.20030312212035@w3.org>
To: www-tag@w3.org, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
CC: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org

I was checking back over old emails while building a draft finding and
came across this. It might still be worthwhile to respond, I thought
... at least to log on www-tag.

On Thursday, January 30, 2003, 10:13:05 PM, Simon wrote:


SSL> duerst@w3.org (Martin Duerst) writes:
>>I think the first paragraph is fine. I don't like the references
>>to specific products at the start of the second paragraph.
>>
>>What about changing the first sentence of the second paragraph to:
>>
>>A raw XML version, an SVG version, an XSL-FO version, and an XHTML
>>version of the same content, as well as different versions in
>>different languages, all potentially using the same ID values,
>>can easily be obtained with mechanisms like HTTP content negotiation.

SSL> That all sounds fine to me.  Tim Bray requested some other changes, so
SSL> maybe we end up at:
SSL> -------------------
SSL> A raw XML version, an SVG version, an XSL-FO version, and an XHTML
SSL> version of the same content, as well as different versions in
SSL> different languages, all identified with the same URI and potentially
SSL> supporting identical fragment identifiers, can easily be obtained as
SSL> representations of the same resource because of mechanisms like HTTP
SSL> content negotiation.
SSL> -------------------

The difference between these two suggested wordings is that, while
"all potentially using the same ID values" is at least theoretically
possible, "potentially supporting identical fragment identifiers" is
possible but fails to note that this only really works if you restrict
the fragments to ID references.

Both wordings might usefully note that they would need to use the bare
id syntax. I am aware that makes the wording longer not shorter,
sorry....

SSL> That may need an edit for sentence length, but I hope it's mutually
SSL> acceptable.




-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2003 15:21:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:09:32 UTC