[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:06:36AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Paul Prescod scripsit:
>
> > IMHO, it is not wise to dumb down XPointer-in-XML to the same level as
> > XPointer-in-hard copy just to be consistent.
>
> I*M*HO, it is not wise to have XPointers (a fortiori, URIs) that work
> in some contexts but not others. A great virtue of URIs is their
> context-independence: they mean the same things whether they appear in
> XML documents or written by hand on bamboo.
but what about URI-References ;-)
<fragment href="foo.xml#[XPointer]"/>
you still need the context to get hold of the resource and then be able
to do the XPointer computation. There is a big difference between allowing
the reference to keep its intrinsic meaning and forcing to always do so.
<off-topic>
One of the "disturbing factors" of namespaces in XPointer expressions
in the case where you would inherit the namespace bindings from the context
is that the namespace prefix used in the XPointer correspond to those
from the source document and may not match the ones in the target resource.
I have seen enough confusion about this namespace prefix/name duality that
having the xmlns() scheme to use the same prefix (when possible) in the
XPointer and target would allow to make nice examples and exercises in
an XML Namespaces for Dummies book :-)
</off-topic>
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
|
