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

RE: XPath 2.0 Requirements - Suggestions

From: Kay, Michael <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 23:24:11 +0200
Message-ID: <DFF2AC9E3583D511A21F0008C7E6210602679D83@daemsg02.software-ag.de>
To: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com, public-qt-comments@w3.org
Andrew, this requirements document was issued after public consultation over
a year ago, and we're not planning to reissue it in the immediate future,
and will only do so if there is a significant change in direction. Although
there was no formal deadline for submitting comments on the requirements
document, the project is now well beyond the requirements phase. If you have
substantive comments asking that particular requirements be added or
removed, that input will still be useful, but editorial comments asking that
the document be rewritten with extra justification material are (in my view)
not something that we can act upon just now. That's not an official WG view,
just my guess as to what the official WG response would be, given the other
demands on our time.

Your comment does provide us with a reminder that we sometimes need to
include justification material in our other publications, for example in the
specs themselves or in the use cases. In the XSLT 2.0 draft we removed a lot
of rationale for existing features like keys, but have added rationale for
new features like grouping, and I have an action to draft additional
descriptive text for the integration with Schema.

Michael Kay
Software AG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com [mailto:AndrewWatt2001@aol.com] 
> Sent: 10 May 2002 14:18
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: XPath 2.0 Requirements - Suggestions
> 
> 
> I would like to suggest that the title of the document is 
> updated to read 
> "XPath Version 2.0 Requirements" rather than its current form.
> 
> I would also like to suggest that the Working Group replace 
> the phrase "XPath 
> 2.0 has the following goals" in 1. Goals with something less 
> fatuous. Such 
> anthropomorphic references to a technology serve only to conceal the 
> rationale for a particular approach. And the rationale for 
> the approach taken 
> to XPath 2.0 is something that deserves more open discussion.
> 
> Perhaps change the phrase to, "The XPath 2.0 Working Group 
> has the following 
> goals for XPath 2.0 ...".
> 
> For each goal I would suggest a brief statement be added 
> describing the 
> benefits anticipated for/from the goal, and a description of 
> who benefits and 
> who is disadvantaged by the change.
> 
> I would also like to suggest that an explicit Goal "That 
> XPath 2.0 does not 
> add unnecessary and irrelevant complexity for users of XSLT" 
> be added to an 
> updated Requirements document.
> 
> Andrew Watt
> 
Received on Sunday, 12 May 2002 17:24:18 GMT

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