- From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:34:50 +0100 (BST)
- To: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>
- cc: mikeschinkel@gmail.com, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, T.V Raman wrote: > Note that the XForms WG originally speculated on subsetting > JavaScript, and for the reasons you mention decided to use XPath > instead. Hi Raman, I am not sure what your point is in saying that. The only real distinction is that XPath allows for the full set of XML identifiers which is larger than for ECMA 262, and that XForms was aligning itself with the suite of XML specifications including XML Schema, XSLT, and XPath, so XPath was a clear winner over ECMAScript. But for non-techies who don't know programming languages, but do know simple arithmetic expressions from their school days, there are therefore different criteria in play. As for the issues of calling external functions it doesn't matter what expression language you use. Static analysis of dependencies for function bodies is impractical. So you have to constrain such functions. That is not a problem in practice, and if necessary you can constrain the set of such functions to a predefined set. p.s. authoring tools could reversably translate between XPath and a more user friendly format, so this isn't that big of a problem. Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 08:35:07 UTC