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

Re: evaluating XPointers

• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: evaluating XPointers
• From: Kian-Tat Lim <ktl@k...>
• Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 21:20:15 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <4.2.0.58.20021026200156.00aece88@p...>

Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> I'm not sure it's possible to creating an xinclude(yes/no/noFallback) 
> scheme using the XPointer Framework because of
[the fact that failing XPointer parts are consumed.]

A counter-argument could be devised based on the xmlns()
scheme.  The sentences before Simon's quote include this
text:

 > Note that an XPointer part that uses xmlns scheme never
 > returns a sub-resource and thus always fails. However,
 > its evaluation has a potential effect on XPointer parts
 > to its right;

thus indicating that even "failing" XPointer parts can
affect the context for later XPointer parts, though they
themselves are "consumed".  With this as precedent, it
does not seem far-fetched to claim that an
xinclude(yes/no/noFallback) scheme could affect the
context for later xpath1() scheme XPointer parts.

-- 
Kian-Tat Lim, ktl@k..., UTF-7: +Z5de+pBU-

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: evaluating XPointers
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • evaluating XPointers
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Are XML's Good Ideas hidden? (was Re: Re: Whatare Schemas For?)
• Next by Date: Re: Are XML's Good Ideas hidden? (was Re: Re:What are Sc...
• Previous by thread: evaluating XPointers
• Next by thread: Re: evaluating XPointers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread