[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 06:08 PM 5/10/2002 +0100, Michael Kay wrote:
> > Is that is mis-characterisation of the situation?
>
>Yes, it's an absurd caricature.
I agree.
>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.
Yep.
>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.
Absolutely.
Jonathan
|
