[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike,
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 19:18, Michael Kay wrote:
> Perhaps I should ask for a vote: do people on this list prefer the
> simple 3-page James Clark description of the XPath 1.0 data model, with
> all these inherent ambiguities, or the complex 30-page committee-written
> description of the XPath 2.0 data model, which attempts to eliminate all
> such ambiguities by diving into layers of abstraction and formalism?
As for myself, I would prefer the method used in the XPath 2.0 data
model spec applied to the XPath 1.0 data model :-) !
Otherwise, if you compare the specifications of the XPath 1.0 and XPath
2.0 datamodels, I don't think you're comparing apples and apples since a
significant amount of complexity has been added to the concept itself,
explaining a part of the increase of the number of pages, the other part
only being needed to eliminate the ambiguities.
Eric
--
See you in Baltimore.
http://www.xmlconference.org/xmlusa/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
