[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Saturday 02 February 2002 12:08 am, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> Almost everyone who says "I have implemented part of XPointer" seems
> to then say "except for ranges" because, compared to most of
> XPointer, ranges sit unhappily on the other side of an enormous
> architectural gap which should form the natural boundary for
> separate specs.
I extended XT *with* string ranges in both match and select
patterns... from my perspective, XPointer is really little more than
XPath extended with range support.
> Now ranges may be a way
> to allow improvement in that, but the Linking WG should complete the
> outhouse first before installing a gold toilet seat.
If you're for minimalism (as I am as a general rule), you extend this
logic to the point that you'd toss XLink altogether... after all,
everything it specifies can be done today in one form or another.
|
