Lists Home |
Date Index |
On 1 Oct 2002, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 15:54, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> > Hi Jim,
> > > lets be honest, Jeni, the silence from most users is mainly due to
> > > the investment in time to review the bewildering array of documents
> > Yes, and I think that's the same reason why W3C XML Schema got so far
> > before people started to complain about its complexity -- people won't
> > read the specs until they need to in order to use the technology, by
> > which time it's usually too late to change the technology into
> > something useful. (Though I guess that led to RELAX NG; perhaps
> > that's a route to follow...)
> I don't know how representative it is, but there is also at least one
> person (me) who has started to read these specs, seen that he didn't
> agree with the requirements and didn't consider that the addded
> complexity over XPath 1.0 is not worth the pain IHO and just can't
> comment because he has no comments except "I'll stay with XPath 1.0 and
> exslt as much as I can"...
This is pretty much my opinion and that of the jaxen team (http://jaxen.org/).
XML without XPath-1 is pretty painful.
XML without XPath-2 is perfectly conceivable, if I have XPath-1.