[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Michael Kay wrote:
>>To me they are different languages and there is no special reason to
>>move to XPath 2.0 (unless of course you really need its features).
>
>
> There are only ever two possible reasons to move from XXX 1.0 to XXX
> 2.0: either you need the new features of the new version, or you are
> obliged to move forwards because everyone else is doing so. This applies
> to XPath as much as to any other XXX, so it's not clear what point you
> are making.
Right, but these reasons are balanced by the cost of migration and my
point was to insist on the gap between XPath 1.0 and 2.0.
Eric
--
Curious about Relax NG? My book in progress is waiting for your review!
http://books.xmlschemata.org/relaxng/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upcoming Schema languages tutorial (registration open):
- July 7th (Portland, OR) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K27A527A4
- August 4th (Montreal, Canada) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U28A217A4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
