Lists Home |
Date Index |
I would be interested in the perspective of list members on an issue which
has arisen in relation to the newly issued XForms 1.0 CR.
It seems to me that a change is being made in XForms 1.0 to XPath 1.0
absolute location path semantics and that that may not be a good idea.
is my original post on the topic. There are a couple of responses.
I guess my concern is twofold.
One is it a good idea to vary the semantics of XPath 1.0 absolute location
paths in XForms 1.0?
Secondly, in a world where multinamespace documents will become the norm what
should be the "scope" (for want of a better term) within a multinamespace
document for any particular processor? Should, say, an XForms processor only
see the "XForms bits" for want of a better term or is that a potentially
confusing change to what a document is, what a root node is etc?
As far as the specifics of the XForms 1.0 issue go, it seems to me that there
are two possible solutions. One is that the claim to being "XPath 1.0"
location paths is removed. The other is that some amendment to absolute
location paths which is (more?) applicable to multinamespace documents is