W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > May 2006

RE: XPath 1.0 or 2.0

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:11:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020357AD09@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "public-xml-processing-model-wg" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of Alessandro Vernet
> Sent: Wednesday, 2006 May 17 21:27
> To: public-xml-processing-model-wg
> Subject: Re: XPath 1.0 or 2.0
> 
> 
> On 5/14/06, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote:
> > > 1. The language (conditionals and other standard components that
> > >    expose an XPath expression) uses XPath 2.0.
> >
> > I can live with 2.0 being the only choice but I think others can't.
> 
> Same here. Is there anyone here who couldn't live with XPath 2.0 being
> the only choice?

Me for lots of reasons, some technical, some "political",
and some just gut feeling from having worked on SGML and
XML related standards for 20 years.

I've been in standards work too long not to realize
that the committee members are all early adopters and
want the latest coolest stuff, but the average customer 
out there has a different definition of "standard", as
does the average non-WG-member implementor.

If we want what we develop to be adopted, it's just
foolhardy to think we can do anything other than
base our version 1.0 on XPath 1.0.

paul

> I would not think that we get a consensus on an
> option where we use "just XPath 2.0", but I feel like the question has
> to be asked anyway.
> 
> Alex
> -- 
> Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source):
> http://www.orbeon.com/blog/
> 
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2006 14:12:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:47 GMT