* Uche Ogbuji wrote:
>But a question remains. Are sequences part of the problem you see in XPath
>2.0? Or are the complicating details all the *ahem* other ahem stuff that has
>been discussed and deplored ad nauseam in this forum?
>
>This is important because if, like me, you see a handful of really useful
>things in XPath 2.0 buried in mounds of waste, then you should be sure to tell
>the group precisely what you find useful. This will allow/encourage them to
>establish a conformance level of XPath 2.0 with which implementors such as you
>and me can content ourselves.
http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/1021601879.2292.105.camel@dirk
