OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] XML design of ((a and b) or c)

The lack of a conformance section in the XPath recommendation makes it
difficult to intuit these things.
We attemted to follow the lead of other groups (DSig in addition to
I would have thought that W3C ownership and its process for review would
have been enough to flush out these comments, but apparently they

Anyway, if xml-dev readers have an interest in these things for the
future, please take at look at http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11 and file
comments.  Or for that matter, any other W3C documents. There's a
mailing list for every single one of them.


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@saxonica.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 4:48 PM
To: Klotz, Leigh; 'David Carlisle'
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] XML design of ((a and b) or c)

> Let me clarify the XSLT point: XSLT defines functions such as 
> current() which are not in the XPath set.
> Those functions are not prefixed.  XForms and XSLT bear the 
> same relationship to XPath.

Not quite he same relationship. XSLT and XPath were under the same
ownership. For some people, namespaces are all about ownership.

It would have been cleaner if the XSLT functions (as well as the XForms
functions) had been in a different namespace, however, and it would have
a better example to other working groups.

Michael Kay

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS