[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[Norm comes to the party late, struggling as ever to keep up with
xml-dev and failing as usual.]
%<snip>%
/ ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
| The quote I disagreed with didn't say "I can't" or "my favourite
| software doesn't", it said "there's no way". All it takes to disprove
| a universal is to give one counter-example, and I did. I'm sorry your
| parser isn't schema-aware, but it could be, and then you'd be better
| off.
%<snip>%
/ ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
| that's another story). So use, XPath is a sensible use. And no, XML
| Schema doesn't immediately give you everything you need to find the
| QNames lurking within XPath expressions. XPath is worth it, despite
| this, in my view.
I can't quite get both those paragraphs into my head simultaneously,
Henry. On the one hand, you're arguing that a schema-aware processor
solves the problem (SMOP). On the other, you're saying that for XPath,
one of the (if not the) most significant uses of QNames in content,
schema-aware processing doesn't help.
Or am I missing something?
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM | Worrying is the most natural and spontaneous
XML Standards Engineer | of all human functions. It is time to
XML Technology Center | acknowledge this, perhaps even to learn to do
Sun Microsystems, Inc. | it better.--Lewis Thomas
|
