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

Re: nasty namespace issue (was RE: Is minimalism a goal?)

From: Francis Norton <francis@redrice.com>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 21:07:26 +0100
Message-ID: <39186FFE.57F33CE2@redrice.com>
To: dave.pawson@virgin.net
CC: www-dom-xpath@w3.org
Dave Pawson wrote:
> Since most things are a response to this header :-)
> A topic on xsl list today noted the
> functional environment availability.
> Any thoughts how far this should go
> in a tight (not minimalist) spec,
> guessing the ultimate would be for
> full xpath list of functions available?
> My vote would be for all xpath functions.
DOM's hasfeature() could be used for this, but unless anyone has a
strong case for not implementing the full set of functions (and they
don't look too scary to me) I think the any compliant DOM XPath
implementation should just implement the lot, and leave hasfeature() for
querying whatever is tricky enough to be left optional. Liek XPath

Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2000 16:08:23 UTC

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