[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 12:55, Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> On Friday 01 February 2002 12:36 pm, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > > XPointer is a huge beast - a good candidate for a 2.0 spec, but
> > > enormous for a 1.0 spec. I'd be much much happier to see
> > > something smaller for a first round.
> >
> > Took me one week to implement the near complete support in libxml
> > on top of the existing XPath implementation.
>
> Took me about a week to add XPointer support to XT too (really
> interesting in match patterns ;-)).
What level of support are you adding? XPointer as more-or-less a query
doesn't seem very difficult to me. XPointer as decorating a tree with
links and presenting that tree interactively seems very very difficult.
> Comparatively, I would say that *XPath* is a huge beast.
Sure, but at least XPath thinks in terms of nodes, and doesn't jump
boundaries on a regular basis.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
