[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> What is the rationale for XPath 2.0 being sacrificed on the
> altar of XQuery?
>
> The snippets of information that have emerged from WG members
> hint that
> little thought has been given to what XPath 2.0 should be,
> other than to
> serve as a handmaiden to XQuery 1.0. Is that is
> mis-characterisation of the situation?
Yes, it's an absurd caricature.
>
> What was the vision for XPath 2.0? It would be good to be
> informed that there
> is a clear, practical and relevant vision for XPath 2.0.
>
XPath is now being used in half a dozen different scenarios: not only
XSLT and XQuery, but XForms, XPointer, DOM, etc. All these scenarios
have different requirements (or perceived requirements) as to how
comprehensive the language should be versus how big it should be. There
is a vision that it should meet everyone's needs for a compact
declarative expression language for access to the contents of XML
documents.
It is true that a lot of the intellectual input into XPath 2.0 has come
from the XQuery effort. But the policy has always been to take those
parts of XQuery functionality that meet a general need, and leave out
those that don't. Don't assume that the current boundary as to which
parts of XQuery are in XPath and which aren't is in any way final: it
changes by the day.
Michael Kay
Software AG
home: Michael.H.Kay@ntlworld.com
work: Michael.Kay@softwareag.com
|
