W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom-xpath@w3.org > May 2000

Re: [dom-xpath] XPath or? (was RE: Announcing www-dom-xpath@w3.org)

From: Michael Champion <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:53:41 -0400
Message-ID: <06cb01bfb478$7fd82490$a20c1e18@WORKGROUP>
To: <www-dom-xpath@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus" <Scott_Boag@lotus.com>
To: <www-dom-xpath@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [dom-xpath] XPath or? (was RE: Announcing www-dom-xpath@w3.org)


>
> Jonathan Robie <Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com> wrote:
> > There's an important coordination issue here - perhaps the API should
> > belong to the Query WG eventually, perhaps to the DOM WG....I'm not sure
> > where this fits best. I'd like to see it somewhere in the W3C.
>
> This is really my point.  I would like to see a Schema API be defined by
> the Schema WG, a Transformation API (and perhaps Serialization API)
defined
> by the XSLT group, a Query API defined by the Query WG, an XPointer/XLink
> API defined by the XLink WG, a Parser API by the XML WG, etc.  And the DOM
> WG should begin to act as a coordination body for these different efforts.

Aha! I think we all agree on this ... and the main reason the DOM WG had
little interest in the XPath extensions is because most think it really
should be someone else's baby.  BUT the Query WG is at least a year or so
away from a Recommendation, and no WG is currently working on XPath (that I
know of), so the choices now are a) nothing happens for a year and we all
hope that the Query WG does what we want; b) the DOM defines an XPath
extension; or c) some ad-hoc group proposes an interim "standard" (a la SAX,
perhaps) and encourages vendors to support it.  I think this mailing list is
considering b) vs c) ... and a) is the default, I guess.
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2000 16:55:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:43:07 UTC