• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: XPointer crisis
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 00:49:09 -0500
• In-reply-to: <00be01c1aba7$acecc210$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <p05100303b8807575e600@[192.168.155.106]> <00be01c1aba7$acecc210$4bc8a8c0@A...>

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. 

• References:
  • XPointer crisis
    • From: "David G. Durand" <david@d...>
  • Re: XPointer crisis
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPointer crisis
• Next by Date: RELAX NG
• Previous by thread: Re: XPointer crisis
• Next by thread: What am I overlooking...?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread