Re: A really micro schema language

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> wrote:

> I'm not familiar with level 4.  Level 3 is the first level that has most
> of the stuff that you really need.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 18, 2012 6:44 AM, "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:35 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You once said that you thought the appropriate MicroXPath was XPath
>> 1.0,
>> >> presumably modulo namespaces, PIs, etc.  Have you had any further
>> >> thoughts about that?
>> >
>> >
>> > Though it pains me to say it, I suspect the most appropriate MicroXPath
>> is CSS3 selectors.
>> >
>> > James
>>
>>
>> Out of curiosity - why do you specifically point to L3 above?  I'm
>> wondering because some of the branches of this thread go off in directions
>> which include symbols which have been potentially slotted for L4 and up...
>>
>
>
Sorry, I didn't mean to take the above offlist... adding the group back.

Presumably the idea would just be to base it on the most robust CSS
Selectors version and hopefully avoid any footguns that would prevent
improvement by using improved selectors as they became available.  With
that in mind, I was just mentioning to be cautious in symbol use as some of
these (?, ! and $ for example) have/are being considered for identifying
the subject of a selector (in the case where you do not want it to be the
last thing in the selector)  - and there might be some other gotchas as
well...

http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors4/
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/selectors4
http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/selectors  <- post level 4 stuff

-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com