• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 19:07:40 +1100
• References: <4.2.0.58.20021026121948.01318b98@p...> <000001c27c0d$7a2e7800$6401a8c0@pcukmka> <000001c27c0d$7a2e7800$6401a8c0@pcukmka> <4.2.0.58.20021026121948.01318b98@p...> <4.2.0.58.20021026155102.00a5a098@p...>

From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>


> (Somewhat paradoxically, I'm hoping that xpath1() will encourage the 
> creation of more XInclude implementations, in order that these issues are 
> encountered more frequently and best practices can start to evolve.)

I've never quite cottened on to why XIncludes are useful.  Is it because
the longevity of ID/IDREF means that "document scope" has not gone
away, yet because entities are not first-class constructs in XML the current
generation of tools promotes an all-element solution (and bugger the
structure)?

Another aspect, I suppose, is that specs like WXS which have an include 
element want to make use of the include statement as a part of modularization:
instead of arbitrary inclusions, perhaps people want more domain-specific
modularization.  

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Do We Need James Clark to get Good Recs?
• Next by Date: Re: The XML 500 word Challenge
• Previous by thread: Re: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
• Next by thread: Re: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread