Re: Draft Note on DOM Support for XPath 2.0

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> Perhaps a name change is in order? Perhaps XPath2Result would be a
> little less confusing, or perhaps something completely different like
> Sequence or XPath2Sequence, since in XPath 2.0 a sequence of one item
> is equivalent to the item itself.

That is a very good suggestion to change the name.  The result sometimes
represents a sequence and sometimes does not, so I am not sure that
naming it XPath2Sequence is a good idea.  XPath2Result sounds good to
me.