Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Rick Jelliffe wrote: > Daniel Schierbeck wrote: > >> I've read the W3C XML Fragment Interchange Candidate >> Recommendation[2], which I've never seen implemented (that may just >> be because I'm ignorant.) The specification seems verbose, and is >> therefore in my opinion unfit as a generic way of transferring XML >> fragments. > > I think it has only been implemented twice (once by me, once by a > student I was helping). > > FragInt is fine technically, but it doesn't really fit in with XML as > it is practised: if you want a selection of data you use a database > query that generates XML; if you want a fragment of a book then you > typically want a chapter sized chunk (file size); if you want to > encapsulate some fragment you use simple SOAP; people don't do > distributed updates (or they use backend tools for replication); there > is no widespread way to say which information in the context has > inheritable scope, so there is no automatic way to make fragments of > that kind of documents; etc. > > I would love FragInt to become a standard part of the basic XML stack. > Its absense is an XLink killer, for example. But probably it is one of > those things so fundamental that there is no demand, perhaps in a > similar fashion to how the tribesmen in my brother's old village never > wanted soft underpants instead of itchy arsegrass: never had it, never > missed it. > > Cheers > Rick Jelliffe That's why I'm proposing a simpler way of doing it: simply encapsulating the fragment in an <xml:fragment/> element. Cheers, Daniel Schierbeck
|
