[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jonathan Robie wrote:
> 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?
You need to provide a model of your documents written with WXS not only
to take advantage of the new features of XPath 2.0 but also to get it
working with for some fairly basic features.
IMO, that's worse than if you had to provide UML models of your classes
when programming in Java :-) ...
Eric
--
Tired to type XML tags?
http://wikiml.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
