RE: [xml-dev] XML design of ((a and b) or c)

["Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>]

The XForms recommendation doesn't call them extension functions [1]; it
says: 
   The XForms Core Function Library includes the entire [XPath 1.0] Core
Function Library, 
   including operations on node-sets, strings, numbers, and booleans.
   These following sections define additional required functions for use
within XForms. 

Later it says that processors are allowed to add "extension functions"
provided they are declared, and gives a declaration mechanism  [2].

Therefore I think XForms is in the same boat as XSLT and DSig.

Certainly the working group is looking at XPath 2.0, and has been for a
long time.  XForms 1.1 [3] still specifies XPath 1.0, and is headed for
last call early next year, in my estimation (though I am no longer an
editor).  If you have specific comments about XPath 2.0 integration, you
might want to direct them at the www-forms list in response to [3].

As for XForms 1.x, you might have noticed there's been a recent trend in
the W3C away from separating presentation from logic and data [4],
against XML namespaces [5], against XML [6], and against well-formedness
in general [7].  I suspect that we'll all have to keep on working while
the W3C ingests WHATWG and internalizes these conflicts.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/slice7.html#expr-lib
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/slice7.html#expr-extension 
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/web-forms-2/
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2006Dec/0004.html
[6] http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/166
[7] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#TagSoupIntegration-54

-----Original Message-----
From: David Carlisle [mailto:davidc@nag.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 4:34 PM
To: Klotz, Leigh
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.

ah those yes.  But they are not extension functions, they are
"additional functions", if they'd been called extension functions they'd
have had to prefix them....

> XForms and XSLT bear the same relationship to XPath.
any chance that xforms 1.x could redefine its xpath extensions as
instead a subset of xpath2, so as to keep the relationship holding?

David