W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: POLL: Fwd: Re: XPath filter 2.0

From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 04:33:33 +0100
To: reagle@w3.org
Cc: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020611033333.ECA2D43E09@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>
r/reagle@w3.org/2002.06.10/17:16:48
>So to conclude the thread I'd like to know what people prefer:
>1. Move forward with what we have presently [3].
>2. Specify Merlin's proposal (The timing of this will be 
>dependent on properly representing the proposal (e.g., Merlin's time 
><smile/>) and then reviewing and iterating on it a few times to make sure 
>we have it clear.)

I believe that I've unilaterally eliminated anybody's choice
in this matter, for which I apologize.

Attached is, probably not as clear as it could be, my
alternative proposal in more explicit language, along with
interop samples.

Note that intersect/subtract are unchanged from before;
there is just the benefit that multiple ops can be done
in a single transform. However; union is different: It
is effectively applied against just the input node set.
You'll see the language in the spec, along with verbiage 
on optimizing N XPath operations into a single sweep
through the document. This also solves the bizarre null
UNION foo from before.

It's late, so I've checked neither the spec nor the
examples for sanity.

Merlin


Received on Monday, 10 June 2002 23:34:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:16 GMT