[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XPointer crisis

• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Subject: Re: XPointer crisis
• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 00:06:31 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <00be01c1aba7$acecc210$4bc8a8c0@A...> from Rick Jelliffeat "Feb 2, 2002 04:08:39 pm"

Rick Jelliffe scripsit:

> Almost everyone who says "I have implemented part of XPointer" seems 
> to then say "except for ranges" because, compared to most of XPointer, 
> ranges sit unhappily on the other side of an enormous architectural gap 
> which should form the natural boundary for separate specs.

But that is because XPointer ranges are monstrosities: not just
*here* to *there*, but from *these* to *those* where we are dealing
with arbitrarily multiplex XPath referents.  For transclusion,
we need to be able to say *here* to *there* and that's all we need.

> The gap is "can I retrieve a WF object which is the subject of
> the link?"    

What you retrieve is the whole document; the XPointer tells you
what part of it to keep.

-- 
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@c...
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There
are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language
that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful.
        --_The Hobbit_

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XPointer crisis
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• References:
  • Re: XPointer crisis
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPointer crisis
• Next by Date: Re: XPointer crisis
• Previous by thread: Re: XPointer crisis
• Next by thread: Re: XPointer crisis
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread