Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Richard Light <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:18:27 +0100
In message <email@example.com>, Peter Murray-Rust
>This is what I am waiting for guidance on :-). Some people such as Eliot
>(and I as a humble follower), see 'resource' as a point. Others appear to
>use 'resource' to represent a finite piece of information. If the latter
>is, in fact, the ERB's view, then the question of where to 'insert' the
>other information is critical.
Well, the XML-Link draft defines 'resource' as "an addressable unit of
information or service which is participating in a link", e.g. "files,
images, documents, programs and query results". In that sense, surely, a
'resource' is definitely a finite piece of information rather than a
I think I can understand the 'point' point-of-view, in that linking (to
XML documents or elements within them) always addresses nodes, which are
points. However, the XML locator syntax carefully ensures that the
target of a link within an XML document is always an element (or
sometimes a little clutch of elements) - it can never be part of an
element (as it can with TEI extended pointers).
So your 'point' is always an element node(s) in the tree structure.
This being the case, I have assumed myself that the intention is to _be
able to_ treat the target resource (element) as a finite thing which can
be delivered to the client.
Surely the wording for ?XML-XPTR= syntax shows an intent to actually
deliver the whole element: "... the host should perform the XPointer
processing to extract the sub-resource [= element], and that only the
sub-resource should be transmitted to the client".
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (email@example.com)