|
|
Re: [xml-dev] ANN: Open XPath NG mailing list
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 21/11/2002 14:08:54 GMT Standard Time, uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com writes:
> > """
> > Some of us who do not like XPath and XSLT 2.0 are earnestly trying
> > to get work going on XPath NG.
> > """
>
Uchi,
I think you may have meant to write, "Some of us who like XPath 1.0 but do not like XPath 2.0 ...".
> I wish you luck, but I do suggest that you quickly find yourselves a
> different name for the project. I've no idea (and don't really care)
> what the legal position is, but you will be doing the community a
> disservice if you create confusion around the XPath name.
First of all, I think you've misunderstood what I've done. All I've done is
create a mailing list. As the welcome message, which I excerpted in this
message to which you responded says, it is also open to discussion of W3C
XPath 2.0. It is also naturally open to some discussion of standard
extensions to XPath 1.0.
So I don't know what confusion you are talking about at this time.
No one has yet written a spec called anything at all. If we come up with a
spec on that mailing list, we'll decide the name then. I personally certainly
would have no compunction about using the name "XPath NG" for such a spec. I
don't see how that would be any more confusing than, say the name "EXSLT" or
"JDOM". But I don't speak for all the members of the mailing list.
Personally, for what little my $0.02 is worth, I think XPath NG would be an excellent name IF there is a proposal / specification to name at some future date. I am comfortable with XPath NG as a working title for what is being considered.
The "NG" has close parallels with RELAX NG. And the XML community is pretty clear that that is not supported by or emanating from W3C.
I don't think that "XPath NG", if it ever exists, is likely to cause real confusion.
In passing I would point out that the W3C IPR page at http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice-20000612#W3C_Trademarks seems to make no claim for any rights over the word/term XPath.
A great many people in the XML community outside W3C make contributions to the W3C specifications. If W3C were to take a position that it is sole arbiter on all issues relating to such specifications and any technologies which might compete with them then the rules of the game have changed for the worse.
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|