OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Is Anyone Interested In XPath 2.0 Use Cases or Requirements?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
  • Subject: Is Anyone Interested In XPath 2.0 Use Cases or Requirements?
  • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
  • Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 15:16:34 -0700
  • Thread-index: AcIkcZ8dR6WviaRlT/aKRZjSLtw4TA==
  • Thread-topic: Is Anyone Interested In XPath 2.0 Use Cases or Requirements?

I recently wrote an article for the MSDN Extreme XML column entitled "Things to Know and Avoid When Querying XML Documents with XPath" located at
which is a collection of XPath annoyances, quirks and idiosyncracies that have tripped up myself and a number of other people both within and outside Microsoft. The issues I picked on are probably the usual suspects to people familiar to XPath such as 
1.) Why //*[1] and (//*)[1] return radically different results
2.) Lack of set specific operators besides union
3.) Lack of identity operators
4.) Lack of value comparators for nodesets 
5.) Why A != B is different from not(A = B) for nodesets
and a few others. Conspicously absent is a lack of critique for the lack of type based querying facilities in XPath. Not that I think this isn't an issue especially since I constantly see people ask for the ability to do operations on dates and schema types but I left it out because these issues seemed less a failing of XPath both more a sign of the evolution of XML applications. 
However what I've found interesting is that most people have showed little interest in XPath 2.0 as can be seen by the relatively scanty number of posts in the public-qt-comments archive at 
which has only broken the 10 email-per-month threshold during the month of May during a particularly raucous cross-posting thread spawned on XML-DEV complaining about PSVI support in XPath 2.0. 
I'm rather curious as to what this means. Is no one interested in any revisions to XPath? Am I wrong in thinking that there were some mistakes made in XPath 1.0 that could be (and seem to have been) rectified in XPath 2.0? Have people moved on to other technologies or is XPath usage not as widespread as I assumed? 


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS