• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XPointer crisis
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 00:41:50 -0500
• In-reply-to: <E16WsNj-0006aD-00@m...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <E16WsNj-0006aD-00@m...>

On Saturday 02 February 2002 12:06 am, John Cowan wrote:
> But that is because XPointer ranges are monstrosities: not just
> *here* to *there*, but from *these* to *those* where we are dealing
> with arbitrarily multiplex XPath referents.  For transclusion,
> we need to be able to say *here* to *there* and that's all we need.

I'm not sure I see much difference. I think it is useful to be able to 
link to multiple points at once... though the minimalist in me does 
cry foul.

FWIW. I can't think of many node-addressing schemes that couldn't have 
the same charges levelled at them.

• References:
  • Re: XPointer crisis
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPointer crisis
• Next by Date: Re: XPointer crisis
• Previous by thread: Re: XPointer crisis
• Next by thread: Re: XPointer crisis
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread