Lists Home |
Date Index |
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> > Hello Mike,
> > > If the DOM interface for XPath specified that nodes could be
> > > returned in any order, this would be a conformant use of XPath,
> > > though many users would find it irritating.
> > Yep. But I guess that most implementers may as well get used to
> > returning node "sets" in document order now, since they're going to
> > have to do that anyway when (if) they implement XPath 2.0 and node
> > *sequences*.
> So far, the Jaxen project has decided that XPath 2.0 is probably
> less than useful to us. Haven't had any users asking about it
> either. Seems like most folks are happy with 1.0 (or at least
> are not too unhappy with it). 2.0 just seems to lose much of
> the simplicity and -value- that XPath 1.0 has for many developers.
But a question remains. Are sequences part of the problem you see in XPath
2.0? Or are the complicating details all the *ahem* other ahem stuff that has
been discussed and deplored ad nauseam in this forum?
This is important because if, like me, you see a handful of really useful
things in XPath 2.0 buried in mounds of waste, then you should be sure to tell
the group precisely what you find useful. This will allow/encourage them to
establish a conformance level of XPath 2.0 with which implementors such as you
and me can content ourselves.
Of course I should note that my own such message is sitting, half-finished, in
my inbox. I guess I'd better get my hypocrite self over to finish it. :-)
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
The many heads of XML modeling - http://adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6393
Will XML live up to its promise? - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/li