RE: XPath conformance? was RE: [xml-dev] storing XML files

["Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evan Lenz [mailto:elenz@xyzfind.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 8:52 PM
> To: Tom Bradford
> Cc: Champion, Mike; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: XPath conformance? was RE: [xml-dev] storing XML files
> 

> Just don't pretend that you're any longer in conformance to 
> the standard.

XPath 1.0 Section 6 says in toto:

"Conformance
XPath is intended primarily as a component that can be used by
other specifications. Therefore, XPath relies on specifications that
use XPath (such as [XPointer] and [XSLT]) to
specify criteria for conformance of implementations of XPath and does
not define any conformance criteria for independent implementations of
XPath."
http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#section-Conformance 

Also, extension functions are defined in XSLT, not XPath, so neither adding
operators or functions to the XPath 1.0 spec is any more or less correct.
If you want a "standard" query language for XML DBMS, wait until XQuery
comes out, (or get the XML world to agree that XSLT is "the" XML query
language, I don't care) then we can argue about each other's conformance. 

Admittedly, I shouldn't have used the word "conformance" in spinning off
this thread. My point was that in a fluid technology/standards situation
such as we find ourselves in now, "conformance" is less important than
learning what really works. It's time  now to figure out what query language
syntax/semantics hits the right balance of theoretical rigor, implementation
efficiency, end-user understandability, and so forth. The argument "I am
more XPath 1.0 conformant than thou" doesn't contribute much to this
process.

If y'all wanna have a religious war, there are plenty of real ones to choose
from these days, sigh.