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

Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.

• To: gtn@r...
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 02:12:27 GMT
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <E1632Yw-0006KT-00@s...> (messagefrom Gavin Thomas Nicol on Sun, 11 Nov 2001 16:53:33 -0500)
• References: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E401C9B300@u...> <E162xHY-0007aG-00@s...> <20011111153610.A12589@r...> <E1632Yw-0006KT-00@s...>

> OK. How about changing it to
> 
>   foo.xml#id='bar' 
>
> or
> 
>   foo.xml#myid='bar'

If you are going to have a specific syntax for XMl you probably may as
well go straight to something as general as xpointer.

the advantage of foo.xml#bar over either of the above is that the #bar
fragment id syntax is supported by a range of mime types.

the meaning of the stuff after the # depends on the mime type of
the entity returned, and that might depend on who's asking.

The uri might be 
http://www.example.com/foo.xml#bar
but if the server there decides that my client won't like xml and
decides to do a sever side xslt/fop transform and send me some pdf
then the #bar still makes sense


similarly if it sends some text/html then #bar means what it means in
html. Of course, if the transform hasn't arranged that there is an
anchor with name or id bar in the generated html then it won't select
anything, but at least with this syntax you have a chance of making it
work. 

If the fragment id is in a syntax specific to XML then it only works
if you know XML is going to be sent. Using xpointer is more verbose than
using #bar but it's XML we're not supposed to care about verbosity...

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• References:
  • RE: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Next by Date: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Previous by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread