W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2002

RE: XPath 2.0 - the relevance of XPointer?

From: Mark Scardina <mark.scardina@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 13:52:12 -0700
To: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>
Cc: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NCBBIFDNJELFNMHKIANNMEMCGCAA.mark.scardina@oracle.com>
The absence of a reference to XPointer was not an unconscious oversight.
XPath is an infrastructure specification whose application is based upon the
host language that uses it.  The fact that XPointer uses XPath 1.0 in no way
obligates it to use 2.0.  XLink is still trying to finish up XPointer 1.0.
The relevance for the joint XSLT and XQuery statement reflects that both
groups are actively working to create XPath 2.0 as we both have need for
datatype support.  I don't see how this can be read as any statement
regarding the future of XPointer.  There are already OASIS specs such as
DSML that depend upon it.

Regards,

Mark

----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark V. Scardina              Group Product Mgr & XML Evangelist
CORE & XML DEVELOPMENT GROUP  E-mail: Mark.Scardina@oracle.com
Web Site: http://otn.oracle.com/tech/xml/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> AndrewWatt2001@aol.com
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 6:40 AM
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: XPath 2.0 - the relevance of XPointer?
>
>
> In Chapter 1.2 of the XPath 2.0 Requirements WD it is stated:
> "The scope of
> XPath 2.0 must be the set of common functionality between the expression
> language of XSLT 2.0 and the expression language of XML Query 1.0.".
>
> Since XPath 1.0 contains functionality common to XSLT 1.0 and
> XPointer 1.0,
> the absence of mention of XPointer should be explained and justified.
>
> Is the absence of mention of XPointer in the Requirements document an
> implicit indication that XPointer is to be dumped by the W3C? Or is it a
> conscious or unconscious oversight on the part of the WG?
>
> Andrew Watt
>
>
Received on Friday, 10 May 2002 16:53:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:22 GMT