W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: which layer for URI processing?

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 05:43:16 -0400
Message-ID: <000101bfc6a1$ade34410$a80a1712@ridge.w3.org>
To: <xml-uri@w3.org>, "Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
To: xml-uri@w3.org <xml-uri@w3.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: which layer for URI processing?

>At 14:12 2000 05 24 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>>At 02:02 PM 5/24/00 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>>>XSLT uses XPath which is included, I understand in the "lower layer" in
>>>[If not, then what is?]
>>XML 1.0 + Namespaces - basically parser output, no more.
>Just what I was going to say.  I'm not sure how I feel
>about the rest of this message, but I'm quite sure that
>basic XML 1.0 (plus namespace) parsing is the low layer,
>and that XPath and--even more so--XSLT processing is
>several layers up.  (Things like XInclude is probably
>at an intermediate layer, for example.)

Oh good!  So Paul and Simon advocate that the XPath should
be in the upper layer and therefore by Simon's model do
absoltization.  Well, yes that would work fine. In fact, of course,
the XPath spec does specify absolutization - and James Clark's
implementation, I understand,  has a comment saying "fix this"
where it ought to be in the code.

The reason I'm on this list is that the xml plenary suggested
that XPath should b changed to be in the bottom layer.

If we take Simon's model, the only thing which can break is that
checking will gives surprising results in rather obscure cases.
And as that won't compromise the actual meaning or operation of the
then I could live with that.  But well-formdness is a rather important
to many people, and it will be left on the lower side of this layer

Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 19:32:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:58 UTC