Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 01:36 PM 5/7/2002 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>On Tue, 2002-05-07 at 13:23, Jonathan Robie wrote:
> > I am not asking you to bless every decision we have made.
>So would you object to a group of developers examining the XPath 2.0
>specification and blessing pieces of it according to a "loose typing
Object? No. This is not something that I personally have time for, but
people should feel free to explore ideas.
I would suggest that anyone who wants to do that should get very clear on
the requirements first, and I think that use cases are a good way to
examine requirements. That might also tell you whether there is a real
problem to be solved.
>That would certainly give you something concrete to respond to while
>letting those of us with little fondness for typing establish our own
>ground on which to argue.
Sure, I like to respond to concrete things.
FWIW, I don't think the market is ready for one more XPath, in addition to
XQuery 1.0, XPath 1.0, and XPath 2.0. I would predict that an unofficial
XPath that is One More Spec to Read will probably be ignored in the long
run, much like SML. But my predictions are often wrong.