|
|
Re: [xml-dev] The vision for XPath 2.0
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 10/05/02 16:25:49 GMT Daylight Time, jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com writes:
The requirements document for XPath 2.0 is here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20req
Jonathan,
That document in 1. Goals starts with the statement, "XPath 2.0 has the following goals ...". A technology does not have goals. People do. So which people have which vision for XPath 2.0 and why? Who gains? Who loses? What do they lose?
Why, for example, is there no goal "Nothing in XPath 2.0 shall oblige users to use XML Schema types who do not wish to do so"? If I understood your comments earlier in the various threads of discussion it is likely that there will be no obligation on users. Is that correct?
It's been out for over a year. I don't think it has really received all
that much feedback. I gather these are features that at least some XPath
users have asked for.
With respect I don't think the WG can be surprised at the relative lack of feedback on the whole group of specs. If I recollect correctly the various specs have rarely been fully in synch at any point in the last year. I could be wrong but not infrequently there is a version mismatch.
That makes it more difficult than it need be for those on the outside to get to grips with what is really going on in the current iteration. The lack of success in putting a fully synchronized set of specs in the public domain conveys, however uninentionally, the message "We (the WG) really don't care what you think".
I think there is a clear vision behind XPath 1.0 and a clear vision for
XQuery.
If it exists then please state it.
Then the obvious question is this: which things in XQuery are
useful in XPath?
No. The obvious question (at least to me) is why there is the assumption that XPath must be viewed as (more or less) a subset of XQuery. Can you answer that question?
> Answering that question is the vision behind XPath 2.0.
What you seem to be saying is that XPath is viewed primarily or totally as a subset of XQuery. Whose vision is that? I am pretty sure it isn't the vision of many existing users of XPath.
Concrete feedback on how we are doing is always appreciated - which
features do you want, and why?
In practice, I think most people are thinking of XPath 2.0 as the part of
XQuery that gets used in XSLT.
This too is disturbing. XSLT 1.0 is an established technology. It may come as a surprise to you and the WG but not everyone views XSLT as a part of XQuery.
Your comments indicating that XPath 2.0 and XSLT 2.0 are viewed as parts of XQuery lends weight to David Carlisle's suggestion that XSLT is being marginalised.
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|