[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[Jonathan Robie]
> At 06:31 PM 5/9/2002 +0100, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> > > These *do* add a lot of complexity, and in the context of XSLT, I
> > > also wonder how much bang for the buck the give us. XQuery clearly
> > > needs them.
> > >
> > > This is, of course, a matter for use cases to sort out ;->
> >
> >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.
>
> I would love to hear more opinions on this question.
>
> And what other features of XPath 2.0 do you think are overkill for XPath?
> Is it a mistake for XPath to try to incorporate so much of XQuery, or is
> this what users really want?
I'll tell you want a lot of users want. They want an XPath that they have a
fighting chance of writing correct expressions for. It's hard enough with
XPath 1.0, but with some trial and error and reading the specs again it's
generally possible. I don't think that it can get much more complex and
still be widely usable. The only way would be for the additions to be
really easy to understand. In other words, the construction and effects of
expressions should seem predictable rather than arbitrary.
Naturally, with experience everything seems simpler and more sensible. As
long as a person can get real useful work done with an easy-to-understand
subset, things may be all right.
Cheers,
Tom P
|
