Lists Home |
Date Index |
> >The closest that XPath 2.0 has to use cases is a bunch of
> >requirements. I can't see anything in that which indicates that cast,
> >treat, assert or validate is required for XPath 2.0, although there
> >might be technical reasons that I haven't seen.
One of the reason the specs are so long is that we included a full listing
of all the issues under consideration. As a careful reader, I'm sure you
haven't missed issue 206 in the XPath specification, which asks: "Which of
these type productions (CAST, TREAT, ASSERT, TYPESWITCH...) belong in
These specs are work in progress. Sometimes we add things to solve an
immediate problem, then we take a top-down view and see that there are
things that can be rationalised and combined, or left out completely. I
think it's fairly obvious to everyone that having casts, constructors,
treat, assert, and validate expressions is overkill, and we will certainly
be looking for ways to simplify this little kitbag.
The feedback from this list is brilliant. It reminds us that the concepts we
have become familiar with through months of discussion may seem obscure and
irrelevant to those meeting them for the first time. It forces us to ask
which of these things are really necessary. The feedback would be even
better if some of it found its way to firstname.lastname@example.org, where a lot
more members of the WGs would see it.