Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 1:14 PM -0500 2/1/02, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 11:59, David G. Durand wrote:
>> If you want Xpointer killed, you can of course relax, because it
> > seems to be dying quickly.
>XPointer is a huge beast - a good candidate for a 2.0 spec, but enormous
>for a 1.0 spec. I'd be much much happier to see something smaller for a
The chances of there ever being an XPointer 2.0 look very dim right
now. Conformance levels would be a good idea, perhaps.
I must say that much of the size of XPointer is due to unification
The best argument that I've seen for conformance levels is to make a
level that would be easy for streaming-only applications -- This
would include child sequences, ranges and labels, but eliminate
more-complex navigation that requires an implementor to either keep a
tree around or do some pretty clever preprocessing on the path.
I could (personally) lose a lot of the navigation features, but
without ranges, none of the applications that I have for Xpointer
will be accommodated. Given the number of XPath implementations,
though, I can't see XPointer as being that hard.
>I even hope that a simpler XPointer might return some life to the
XLink is going to stay listless until there's some version of
XPointer, that's for sure.
David Durand | 12 Bassett St.
firstname.lastname@example.org | Providence RI, 02903-4628 USA
VP, Software Architecture | 401-331-2014 x111 Cell: 401-935-5317
ingenta plc | FAX: 401-331-2015