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

Re: more QName madness

• To: veillard@r...
• Subject: Re: more QName madness
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:27:01 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: jcowan@r... (John Cowan), paul@p... (Paul Prescod), ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson), xml-dev@l..., simonstl@s... (Simon St.Laurent)
• In-reply-to: <20021114101920.F28903@r...> from "Daniel Veillard" at Nov 14, 2002 10:19:20 AM

Daniel Veillard scripsit:

>   but what about URI-References ;-)
>   <fragment href="foo.xml#[XPointer]"/>
> you still need the context to get hold of the resource and then be able
> to do the XPointer computation. 

In that case, the meaning of the relative URI is determined by the context
(viz. the location) of the embedding document, *not* by its content.
This distinction is fundamental, though I admit that xml:base blurs it.

> [H]aving the xmlns() scheme to use the same prefix (when possible) in the
> XPointer and target would allow to make nice examples and exercises in 
> an XML Namespaces for Dummies book :-)

Certainly a reasonable "best practice", though of course not possible
in the case of non-sane documents.

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan@r...  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
Promises become binding when there is a meeting of the minds and consideration
is exchanged. So it was at King's Bench in common law England; so it was
under the common law in the American colonies; so it was through more than
two centuries of jurisprudence in this country; and so it is today. 
       --_Specht v. Netscape_

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: more QName madness
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>

• References:
  • Re: more QName madness
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>

• Prev by Date: QNames ain't URIs (was QName madness)
• Next by Date: RE: End of the Web browser era? And an opportunity for SVG?
• Previous by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Next by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread