W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2009

[Bug 7059] Forking XPath

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:59:50 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1MlMm6-0007Zw-IS@wiggum.w3.org>

--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com>  2009-09-09 12:59:50 ---
(In reply to comment #25)

> How does the effect of the current spec text differ from the effect of what you
> suggested in comment 18? If it differs in any way, my comment 20 is based on a
> misunderstanding.

I believe the effect is the same - but it is very difficult for the reader to
determine whether this is true or not, because the text currently adds some
cases to what XPath 1.0 specifies, then makes some restrictions that XPath 1.0
does not contain.

Perhaps the two WGs, when we meet, could usefully discuss whether there are any
differences in the end result.

But I also think that the language of the XHTML specification should read more
like comment #18 than like what it currently contains, i.e. it should conform
to what XPath 1.0 says except for the default element namespace, rather than
make two changes to how name tests work, add a note saying that it willfully
violates the XPath 1.0 specification, and hoping that the reader can realize
that if you think about it hard enough, the only real difference is the default
element namespace. 

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 13:00:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:00 UTC