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

The Core WG decided to add some explanation about why the split was
made.  Here is my first draft of this text (suggestions welcome):

<note>
	<p>For interoperability, fragment identifiers <termref
def="dt-must">should not</termref> be used; the interpretation and
application of media-specific fragment identifiers in creating
info-items is not guaranteed to be supported across implementations.
For <att>parse="xml"</att> inclusions, sub-resources are identified by a
separate <att>xpointer</att> attribute instead of by a fragment
identifier.  A separate attribute is necessary because a fragment
identifier is interpreted according to the media type of the returned
resource, while the <att>xpointer</att> attribute is applied after the
resource has been cast to application/xml.</p>
</note>

Sorry for the delay in responding - I'm afraid I no longer have time to
keep current on the comments list, but only read it when the Core WG is
actively discussing the comments.  Symptomatic of my discouragement that
these two elements have taken three years so far to develop?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-xml-xinclude-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-xml-xinclude-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:43 AM
> To: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
> Cc: Ian Jacobs
> Subject: 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 Wednesday, 7 January 2004 13:25:35 UTC