OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] XPointer and XML Schema

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Yes, yes, locality is good. Normally, I don't care what some server thinks, 
I worry about what my processes and users think about the data.

But isn't XPointer a different case?
My understanding of XPointer's mission is "to define the fragment 
identifiers for the text/xml mime-type".

If we want to preserve the universality of URLs, there should be a 
consistent meaning for the fragment identifiers. Giving them a different 
meaning based on what XML Schema is used reminds me of the earlier proposal 
that namespace/prefix bindings depended on the context of the reference. I 
think this idea should be rejected for the same reasons.

Yes, I know how it works with DTDs. But users of documents processes them 
using the DTD specified by (or even internal to) the instance. They don't 
load up a random DTD of their choice and use it instead - if they do they 
expect certain things to break, such as fragment identifiers.

-Wayne Steele

>We could do that, but it would be wrong (in my view).  Wrong because
>it violates locality -- a barename link with name XYZZY is to what the
>_target_ establishes as is its XYZZY ID, not the source.  Think of how
>it works with DTDs, and a complex case with external entities and
>catalogues and proxies and . . .  There's nothing I can do at the
>source end to determine what the target is going to establish as the
>referent under those circumstances.  So I don't think there should be
>for the Schema case either.  The _user_ does that by setting up the
>processing environment, in either case.

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS