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

At 04:53 PM 5/2/00 -0400, Michael Champion wrote:

>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.

I think I agree with your analysis.

And unfortunately, the default will result in dozens of proprietary 
interfaces that all do the same thing.

Jonathan