W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2000

RE: Meaning of /descendant-or-self::node()

From: John Boyer <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 08:52:06 -0700
To: "James Clark" <jjc@JCLARK.COM>
Cc: "XML DSig" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, <Steven_DeRose@Brown.edu>
Actually, it does not take a fundamental redesign to add this feature.  It
would simply require a new axis like all-descendants.  Furthermore, I
expressed an opinion that it seemed overly cumbersome to indicate the entire
parse tree *because* the ability to apply certain tests to every node (e.g.
give me every node except those having a certain ancestor) is quite useful
in a variety of circumstances.  You declared that you didn't believe there
was a problem.  Is there some reason for this belief (i.e. something that
would follow the word *because*)?

John Boyer
Software Development Manager
PureEdge Solutions Inc. (formerly UWI.Com)
Creating Binding E-Commerce

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of James Clark
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 7:40 PM
To: John Boyer
Cc: XML DSig; Steven_DeRose@Brown.edu
Subject: Re: Meaning of /descendant-or-self::node()

John Boyer wrote:

> Do you think there is any possibility that this might get fixed at some
> point in the future?

I don't think there is any possibility whatever that the meaning of
/descendant-or-self::node() will change.  You can't fundamentally
redesign a spec after it's become a Recommendation. (I don't agree, by
the way, that the current design is flawed in this respect, but that's
academic at this point.)

Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 11:52:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:33 UTC