Re: XPointer and XML Schema
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
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format