Date: Mon,  4 Nov 2002 21:06:04 -0500From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>To: www-tag@w3.orgMessage-ID: <r01050400-1021-240B12FEF06311D6870B0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>Subject: Re: [Issue fragmentInXML-28] Use of fragment identifiers in XML   Paul Prescod writes:>It seems to me that the poor #-sign is a hammer and everyone sees it as >the tool for hammering their favourite nail.I think you're completely correct about that, and a lot of themotivation for writing the Internet-Drafts I published last week isfiguring out what kind of hammer the fragment identifier really is.  I'mmoderately astounded that I've not had more explicit pushback on thosedrafts, though I've had a fair number of typos reported.My current suspicion is that URI references are now grossly overloaded,and that treating them only as a shorthand syntax for something moreexplicitly specified might be a good idea.  For example:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-cdata-sectIs typically interpreted as having meaning somewhat like:<URIref>   <!--URI could itself be broken down into parts-->   <URI>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml</URI>   <Action>GET</Action>   <Content-type>text/html</Content-type>   <lang>en</lang>   <location>sec-cdata-sect</location></URIref>Whether or not they know those details, I suspect that's pretty much theexpections people have.  Change any of those expectations, and youeither need to supplement the URI reference with something else, or dosomething like XPointer with its schemes.I might want to reference the same point in the XML version as:<URIref>   <URI>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml</URI>   <Action>GET</Action>   <Content-type>application/xml</Content-type>   <lang>en</lang>   <location>sec-cdata-sect</location></URIref>A more sophisticated XPointer approach to a similar reference in adocument without labels might look like:<URIref>  <URI>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml</URI>  <Action>GET</Action>  <Content-type>application/xml</Content-type>  <lang>en</lang>  <location>    <nsContext>    <ns><prefix>do</prefix><uri>http://simonstl.com/ns/do</uri></ns>    <ns><prefix>re</prefix><uri>http://simonstl.com/ns/re</uri></ns>    <ns><prefix>mi</prefix><uri>http://simonstl.com/ns/mi</uri></ns>    </nsContext>    <xpath1>//do:note/re:notes/mi:notes</xpath1>   </location></URIref>Or perhaps, to leap completely into the wild:<URIref>  <URI>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml</URI>  <Action>POST</Action>  <Message>     <message><craving>fire</craving></message>   </Message>  <result>      <Content-type>application/xml</Content-type>      <lang>en</lang>      <location>        <requirements>          <xinclude fallback="yes"/>          <extEntities />        </requirements>        <nsContext>        <ns><prefix>do</prefix><uri>http://simonstl.com/ns/do</uri></ns>        <ns><prefix>re</prefix><uri>http://simonstl.com/ns/re</uri></ns>        <ns><prefix>mi</prefix><uri>http://simonstl.com/ns/mi</uri></ns>        </nsContext>        <firstOf>          <xpointer>string-range(//title,"Flames Ablaze!")</xpointer>          <anyOf>            <text>fire</text>            <xpath1>//do:home/re:hearth/mi:fire</xpath1>          </anyOf>        </firstOf>        </location>  </result>  <result>    <Content-type>application/xhtml+xml</Content-type>    <Content-type>text/html</Content-type>    <lang>en</lang>    <location>      <name>firePlace</name>    </location>  </result></URIref>These things just aren't expressable in a URI reference (and probablyshould not be).  It may be worth asking what kind of task is beingperformed, and decide whether a URI reference is actually the best wayto get there.  (And here I thought XLink was verbose... but at least that's reasonablyclear, except perhaps to the extent that it uses URI references.)-------------Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLAhttp://simonstl.com may be my URIhttp://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URIurn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether