W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: XPath version

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:37:58 +0100
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0711100537tcc59ff7r2aaf2a87f248e0f7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

On Nov 10, 2007 2:22 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> / Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt> was heard to say:
> | Hi all,
> |
> | Ok for me, but I'd prefer having an @xpath-version for p:pipeline and
> | p:pipeline-library.
>
> That means we have to define what it means for all the possible
> combinations of mixed versions on pipelines and libraries imported
> into each other.
>
> If we can avoid that...

Imagine we go that way

Is it really difficult ?

* pipeline or library having @xpath-version 1 calling only @xpath-version 1 :
->same level : no problem (may be warning for implementation relying
on xpath 2 engine, that it will be evaluated in backward compatible
mode)

* pipeline or library having @xpath-version 2 calling only @xpath-version 2 :
->same level : no problem

* pipeline or library having @xpath-version 1 calling some @xpath-version 2
OR pipeline or library having @xpath-version 2 calling some @xpath-version 1 :
->whether the processor handle xpath 2 and it has to warn that xpath 1
expressions will be evaluated in backward compatible mode
->whether the processor doesn't handle xpath 2 and then crash


The only tricky question : is it hard for implementers using XPath 2
engine to switch to backward compatible mode here and there ?


Mohamed


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Saturday, 10 November 2007 13:38:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:54 GMT