• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XPointer crisis
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:05:35 -0500
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020201134448.029015c8@157.189.161.214>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <1012587257.27106.38.camel@l...> <5.1.0.14.0.20020201134448.029015c8@157.189.161.214>

On Friday 01 February 2002 02:08 pm, Jonathan Robie wrote:
> I think XPointer is useful, but it should not own the fragment
> identifier. That should be reserved for something *much* simpler.

Perhaps that is the *real* issue? We keep hearing about complexity, 
but implementation experience says that XPointer is only incrementally 
worse than XPath (which for many things is way overkill).

FWIW. I think that it's fine for XPointer to own the fragment 
identifier of text/xml.... just not for things like SVG. 

Ultimately, fragment identifiers are a hack anyway.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XPointer crisis
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@s...>

• References:
  • Re: XPointer crisis
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XPointer crisis
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@s...>

• 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