[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XPath conformance? was RE: [xml-dev] storing XML files
- From: Evan Lenz <email@example.com>
- To: Tom Bradford <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 17:52:06 -0700
Tom Bradford wrote:
> Evan Lenz wrote:
> > Sorry, but there is a qualitative distinction here that has practical
> > implications. If you don't want to support XPath at all, fine. But if
> > are going to implement it, then you should use the extension mechanisms
> > provided.
> And I disagree. There are times when extensions to a language in the
> form of functions are completely inadequate to effectively provide a
> given behavior.
There's no question that functions limit the semantics of what you can do.
You can't enforce that the value of a function argument be known statically,
etc. There is clearly a trade-off between conformance to standards and the
functionality you might gain with proprietary additions to the syntax of a
But let's be clear. The subject line of this thread is "XPath conformance".
There's nothing stopping you from adding proprietary constructs to your
implementation (though this will be frowned on, as has Microsoft's past
behavior of this kind).
Just don't pretend that you're any longer in conformance to the standard.