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

[Bug 7059] Forking XPath

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:50:23 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1MleQB-0006es-Vo@wiggum.w3.org>

--- Comment #29 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>  2009-09-10 07:50:23 ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> We're not going to delay the spec until such time as the workings groups can
> meet — the HTML working group is literally hundreds of people, so all we'd
> ever be able to do is have a subset of the group meet, like we're doing at the
> TPAC. Plus, such a group from the HTMLWG would by charter be unable to make any
> decisions, anyway, since we have to make decisions in a way that allows
> asynchronous participation.

I won't be at TPAC.

(In reply to comment #27)
> (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.

Isn't that what any delta spec does?

> 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.

I disagree. I think the way the spec is currently worded requires the least
amount of thought on the behalf of the implementor who is hacking the delta to
an existing XPath 1.0 implementation. After all, what's in the spec in the
implementation delta that is needed (with or without the edit from rev 3765).
If even you can't immediately see if your wording matches this delta, your
wording isn't obvious enough.

Invoking the concept of "default namespace" doesn't make sense, because it is
an XPath 2.0 concept and HTML5 is specifying a delta on top of XPath 1.0.

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 Thursday, 10 September 2009 07:50:32 UTC

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