W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2003

RE: Denotation of XMLLiterals: poll

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 12:38:13 +0200
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDEEODCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

DanBri:
> I just sent one: we would need to decide which version of XPath to
> reference, and understand any costs/risks re blessing XPath 1.0 when 2.0
> is looming.
>

I think this is a misplaced concern.

We *have* a dependency on xpath 1.0 in that we depend on exc-c14n which
depends on c14n which depends on xpath 1.0.

Yes, we have swept that dependency under the transitivity carpet ... but to
make it explicit would not be a substantive change.

A particular issue is to do with processing instructions; the last time I
looked (a while ago) xpath 2.0 was treating these differently than in xpath
1.0. Life is not perfect and of course some of our dependencies are aging.
For the XML 1.0 to XML 1.1 variation we have worked harder to be aware of
the implications. This is not something we have done for xpath 1.0 to 2.0,
and I do not believe we have the energy to do it now.


Jeremy
Received on Friday, 8 August 2003 06:38:52 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:35 EDT