[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 07:22 PM 6/10/2003 +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>IMO, complexity is not the main point here. What's happening with XPath
>2.0 is that you're changing the nature of the language, like if you said
>for Java: "the next version will not be interpreted but compiled" or
>"the next version will be dynamically typed" or maybe more to the point
>"you will have to provide a UML model before you can define a class in
>the next version".
OK, I'll bite.
Why would anyone need to use anything analogous to a UML model to use XPath
2.0?
Jonathan
|
