[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: XPath conformance? was RE: [xml-dev] storing XML files
- From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 22:26:46 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evan Lenz [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 8:52 PM
> To: Tom Bradford
> Cc: Champion, Mike; email@example.com
> 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:
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
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
If y'all wanna have a religious war, there are plenty of real ones to choose
from these days, sigh.