Lists Home |
Date Index |
You seem to be making a fairly common mistake.
XPath expression are not evaluated against "documents", but rather against
an XPath data model. In many cases, the XPath data model is isomorphic with
an entire XML document, but nowhere is this required.
It's up to any specification that uses XPath to define the data model and
context against which XPath expressions are evaluated. How else could it
From: AndrewWatt2000@aol.com [mailto:AndrewWatt2000@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:57 AM
Subject: [xml-dev] Changing XPath 1.0 Semantics in XForms 1.0?
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
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
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
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