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

Re: escaping QName interlopers

• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: escaping QName interlopers
• From: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney@i...>
• Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:03:22 -0500
• References: <r01050400-1023-8EA4373E2E4111D7AFB80003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• Reply-to: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney@i...>

> The description you provide is pretty accurate.
> http://example.com/page/part_in_a_page  refers to a resource identified
> as http://example.com/page/part_in_a_page , while
> http://example.com/page#part_in_a_page refers to a fragment of the
> resource identified http://example.com/page.

Hmm, let me be clearer, "/page" is expected to resolve.  Don't start on me about
URIs not being required to be resolvable.  Humor me a bit.  The thought being a
request for http://example.com/page is going to return "something" in the form
of a document, possibly an HTML file.  So my thinking is that a request for
/page#part_in_a_page is going to be some section within the /page document that
is in one way or another identified by the 'part_in_a_page' string.  I fully
realize how screwed up this is, especially if /page returns and XML document.
I'm naively saying that in such a case the fragment has "some sort" of ID tag
that matches up.

Yes, this does seem decidedly lame.  Especially when there's a desire to use
versioning in there.  Hold on, let me get my spear so I can go gore _that_
sacred cow for a while...  My interest is simply in trying to find useful ways
to look at URIs as something more than just overly large opaque identifier
strings.

> >Is there a good/bad reason not to do it this way?
>
> As long as you're referring to resources and fragments inside resources,
> it makes great sense.  How that should relate to QNames is a weirdly
> different problem - one where people appear to have confused string
> concatenation with URI processing.

I daresay you're entirely correct.  I'd certainly appreciate some QName for
Dummies examples.

> That part appears to be unfixable, with the people who created URIs in
> general as well as with the people who created particular URIs.

Sadly so.

-Bill Kearney

• References:
  • Re: escaping QName interlopers
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: escaping QName interlopers
• Next by Date: Re: ANN: Trang (multi-format schema converter)
• Previous by thread: Re: escaping QName interlopers
• Next by thread: Re: escaping QName interlopers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread