[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XInclude vs SAX vs validation
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:51:39 -0400
On 21 Aug 2001 17:21:57 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> The implementation time and processing cost has been pointed out
> quite a few time, I think the former is a question of getting the
> right toolkit, if you have XPath implementing XPointer is not very
> hard (took me too weeks part time).
While I'm delighted that there _is_ an XPointer implementation, and
thank you for writing it, I really wish you'd stop claiming that
"implementing XPointer is not very hard".
If it's so easy, why is genuine XPointer support such a rare creature?
I've implemented the (braindead simple) child sequence portion of it,
and I'm working on improving my support for IDs in that mix, but I can't
say that I find (or that many other people find) that "implementing
XPointer is not very hard." I'm certainly not a programming wizard, but
I don't think I'm also in finding that implementing XPointer (as it
currently stands) is in fact quite difficult.
Sadly, claims like this have a direct impact on the kind of XPointer
spec we're like to see emerge from the W3C. The nature of that spec is
going to have a direct impact on the usefulness of XLink and XInclude,
and I can't say the future looks particularly bright.