- From: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 22:53:49 -0700
- To: "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
- CC: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Kay, Michael wrote: > [I assume by 1.1 you mean 1.0?] Yes. > A naïve implementation certainly is very wasteful. Even implementations that > create the nodes on demand (as I suspect most XPath 1.0 implementations do) > can incur considerable costs. This is why we have deprecated the namespace > axis: this means that an XPath 2.0 implementation never needs to expose > namespace nodes to the application, which in turn means that questions about > their identity and parentage are somewhat academic. Having deprecated the > namespace axis, it made sense to decide that where it is supported, it > should be supported with exactly the XPath 1.0 semantics. Thanks for affirming and clarifying this. Perhaps it would be useful to add wording similar to that in XPath 1.0 (that each element has a complete set of non-shared namespace nodes), but with the note that this only applies to implementations that wish to offer XPath 1.0 compatibility. I don't see any such explicit statement about what namespace nodes exist (in such an implementatation). -- --Per Bothner per@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 01:52:54 UTC