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

Scott Boad wrote,
> 1) Node already has 24 methods on it, which is quite enough.  
> 2) It requires that the XPath implementation be done *by* the 
>    DOM implementation, instead of *on* the DOM 
>    implementation.  And a bunch of other arguments that I 
>    have made in previous emails that I will not reiterate on.

1. As far as I understood form Mike, XPath support would be an
   option DOM module. So any new XPath methods would actually
   live on something like a NodeXPath interface rather than
   Node itself (cp. the other option modules in Level 2).

   In any case, the mere number of methods on an interface
   isn't a particularly interesting software design metric.

2. Allowing a DOM implementation to _optionally_ implement
   XPath itself opens up the possiblity for _significant_
   optimizations over what can be achieved via the exisiting
   public API. (Mike, maybe you should chip on how that might 
   pan out in the case of a DOM API to an XML database).

Cheers,


Miles

-- 
Miles Sabin                       Cromwell Media
Internet Systems Architect        5/6 Glenthorne Mews
+44 (0)20 8817 4030               London, W6 0LJ, England
msabin@cromwellmedia.com          http://www.cromwellmedia.com/

Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2000 13:22:05 UTC