RE: Xpath 1.0 and 2.0

Firstly, XPath 1.0 is still the current version of the language. XPath 2.0
is only work in progress.

Secondly, W3C doesn't generally modify or withdraw Recommendations once they
are published (though they are sometimes updated to correct errors). It's
important that there should be a good level of trust that when you refer to
a Recommendation, the document you read on the web today should be the same
as the one I will read tomorrow. Admittedly, this trust wouldn't disappear
if a forwards reference were added to a subsequent version. But it would
raise awkward questions, like should the normative references at the end of
the XPath spec be updated to refer to later versions of other
specifications?

The best way to find current versions of all W3C specifications is to start
at http://www.w3.org/TR/ which gives all the specs and their current status.

Michael Kay


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-xpath-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-xpath-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Simuni, Ilya
> Sent: 05 November 2004 15:20
> To: 'Jonathan Robie'
> Cc: 'www-xpath-comments@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: Xpath 1.0 and 2.0
> 
> 
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> Thanks for replying.
> That's exactly my point: when I was looking at 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath,
> there was no way of knowing that there is a new version out there.
> 
> IHO, There should be a link to the Latest and Greatest 
> version on that (and
> other) pages.
> 
> Regards,
> ilya
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@datadirect.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 7:46 PM
> To: Simuni, Ilya
> Cc: 'www-xpath-comments@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: Xpath 1.0 and 2.0
> 
> 
> Hi Ilya,
> 
> Which page do you mean? If you mean 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath, it does 
> not mention XPath 2.0 because it didn't exist at the time 
> that page was 
> created.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> Simuni, Ilya wrote:
> > Xpath folks,
> > 
> > Why the page for xpath v1.0 does not mention v2 at all??
> > 
> > Regards,
> > ilya
> > 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 15:38:24 UTC