Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
In message <8576@u...>, Peter Murray-Rust <Peter@u...> writes > >This is what I am waiting for guidance on :-). Some people such as Eliot >(and I as a humble follower), see 'resource' as a point. Others appear to >use 'resource' to represent a finite piece of information. If the latter >is, in fact, the ERB's view, then the question of where to 'insert' the >other information is critical. Well, the XML-Link draft defines 'resource' as "an addressable unit of information or service which is participating in a link", e.g. "files, images, documents, programs and query results". In that sense, surely, a 'resource' is definitely a finite piece of information rather than a point. I think I can understand the 'point' point-of-view, in that linking (to XML documents or elements within them) always addresses nodes, which are points. However, the XML locator syntax carefully ensures that the target of a link within an XML document is always an element (or sometimes a little clutch of elements) - it can never be part of an element (as it can with TEI extended pointers). So your 'point' is always an element node(s) in the tree structure. This being the case, I have assumed myself that the intention is to _be able to_ treat the target resource (element) as a finite thing which can be delivered to the client. Surely the wording for ?XML-XPTR= syntax shows an intent to actually deliver the whole element: "... the host should perform the XPointer processing to extract the sub-resource [= element], and that only the sub-resource should be transmitted to the client". Richard Light. xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@i...)
|
