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

Re: XPointer and XML Schema

• To: xmlmaster@h..., ht@c..., xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XPointer and XML Schema
• From: "Wayne Steele" <xmlmaster@h...>
• Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:27:39 -0700
• Bcc:

Just found it:

Chapter 4.1 of RFC 2396 says:
<quote>
...
The semantics of a fragment identifier is a property of the data resulting 
from a retrieval action, regardless of the type of URI used in the 
reference. Therefore, the format and interpretation of fragment identifiers 
is dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of the retrieval result. The 
character restrictions described in Section 2 for URI also apply to the 
fragment in a URI-reference. Individual media types may define additional 
restrictions or structure within the fragment for specifying different types 
of "partial views" that can be identified within that media type.

A fragment identifier is only meaningful when a URI reference is intended 
for retrieval and the result of that retrieval is a document for which the 
identified fragment is consistently defined.
</quote>

I believe the viewpoint that "the client determines what the fragment 
identifier really means" is at odds with the definition in RFC 2396.

-Wayne Steele




>From: "Wayne Steele" <xmlmaster@h...>
>To: ht@c..., xml-dev@l...
>Subject: Re:  XPointer and XML Schema
>Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:49:02 -0700
>
>Yes, yes, locality is good. Normally, I don't care what some server thinks, 
>I worry about what my processes and users think about the data.
>
>But isn't XPointer a different case?
>My understanding of XPointer's mission is "to define the fragment 
>identifiers for the text/xml mime-type".
>
>If we want to preserve the universality of URLs, there should be a 
>consistent meaning for the fragment identifiers. Giving them a different 
>meaning based on what XML Schema is used reminds me of the earlier proposal 
>that namespace/prefix bindings depended on the context of the reference. I 
>think this idea should be rejected for the same reasons.
>
>Yes, I know how it works with DTDs. But users of documents processes them 
>using the DTD specified by (or even internal to) the instance. They don't 
>load up a random DTD of their choice and use it instead - if they do they 
>expect certain things to break, such as fragment identifiers.
>
>-Wayne Steele
>
>
>>We could do that, but it would be wrong (in my view).  Wrong because
>>it violates locality -- a barename link with name XYZZY is to what the
>>_target_ establishes as is its XYZZY ID, not the source.  Think of how
>>it works with DTDs, and a complex case with external entities and
>>catalogues and proxies and . . .  There's nothing I can do at the
>>source end to determine what the target is going to establish as the
>>referent under those circumstances.  So I don't think there should be
>>for the Schema case either.  The _user_ does that by setting up the
>>processing environment, in either case.
>>
>>ht
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
>http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XPointer and XML Schema
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• Prev by Date: Re: Quick Xpath
• Next by Date: Re: Quick Xpath
• Previous by thread: Re: XPointer and XML Schema
• Next by thread: Re: XPointer and XML Schema
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread