[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dare,
I suspect that the number of knowledgable people who have taken a look at the 2.0 data model is drastically smaller than those who have read and understand the 1.0 material. The sheer size of the XPath 2.0 specifications is a limiting factor. I suspect that there are a lot of people like myself who are interested, but don't have the time to read such a tomb. I want 1.) with the ability to extend beyond the limitations. XPath 1.0 is a good example of that kind of specification.
Keith
Engineering is what happens when science and
mathematics meet politics. Products are what
happens when all three meet reality.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 1:25 PM
To: michael.h.kay@ntlworld.com; Elliotte Rusty Harold; Uche Ogbuji
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
That's a bad simplification. No one is debating short & ambiguous spec vs. long & detailed spec.
Secondly, the data model is probably the only part of XPath 2.0 that doesn't have fundamental issues and seems to have received little (if any) complaint from any of the knowledgeable people who have taken a look at it. All in all, bad examples in your email.
The question is really whether we want
1.) Consistent and simple yet limited specs (lack of string manipulation functions in XPath is such a gross oversight)
or
2.) Inconsistent and complex specs that try to be everything to everybody but fall far short (W3C XML Schema, possibly XQuery)
The interesting correlation is that the size of the working groups for both classes of specs are significantly different.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay [mailto:michael.h.kay@ntlworld.com]
Sent: Mon 10/28/2002 10:18 AM
To: 'Elliotte Rusty Harold'; 'Uche Ogbuji'
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
> OK, since you asked for it, here are some of the sections of XPath
> and XSLT specs which I think only make sense if you understand the
> input tree to have a direct connection to the actual XML document:
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?
I get the impression you lot can't make your minds up.
Michael Kay
Software AG
home: Michael.H.Kay@ntlworld.com
work: Michael.Kay@softwareag.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
