- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 23:48:28 GMT
- To: mrys@microsoft.com
- Cc: dnovatchev@yahoo.com, public-qt-comments@w3.org
My fear is that A will hurt most as the number of places where the typing rules produce error messages that will be inexplicable to anyone who hasn't spent months pouring over the darkest regions of the specs is just so great that the language verges on the unusable if the specified static typing is turned on (and in some cases even if it is not, see for example Jeni's paper at Extreme discussing some problems that affect even users of xslt without static type checking (which thankfully is not really supported in xslt). Thus the effect of A is no program at all (or the program written in a different language, xslt1, omnimark, perl,...) the "first node" semantics of xpath1 sometimes (well, often) catch out the beginner but the rule is simple to explain and simple to remember. the same can hardly be said of the static typing rules from the FS document. At this "last call" stage for xpath/xslt 1 there were several more or less complete implementations available. It is noticable that there is as far as I know currently only one widely available xpath2 implementattation (saxon) and that does not implement the static typing rules. I hope the WG are aware that XPath2 is viewed at best with suspicion and commonly with horror in large parts of the existing Xpath user base (and xpath1 implementors). The baroque nature of the typing system, and the arbitrary and unexpected extra use of explicit casting that it forces on the end user must play a large part in the negtive perception that Xpath is facing. David
Received on Monday, 1 December 2003 18:49:20 UTC