• To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>,"Sean McGrath" <sean.mcgrath@p...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Some thoughts on 'direct access' to XML (long)
• From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
• Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:58:39 +0000
• In-reply-to: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B7C807@R...>
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B7C807@R...>

On Saturday 18 January 2003 18:37, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> The concept of a pointer you say XML lacks is solved at the local (i.e.
> document) level by IDs and at the global (multi-document) level by XPointer
> (if it ever ships).

That's not a pointer, it's something you can use as a pointer - it's a 
foreign key relationship. The difference is in the dereferencing :-)

Anyway, that's beside the point.

ABS

-- 
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit
 - ARP

• Follow-Ups:
  • Review of XML Schemas datatypes
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • RE: Some thoughts on 'direct access' to XML (long)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML and ConciseXML
• Next by Date: Re: Will somebody please mention Hitler?
• Previous by thread: RE: Some thoughts on 'direct access' to XML (long)
• Next by thread: Review of XML Schemas datatypes
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread