- From: Javier Godoy <rjgodoy@fich.unl.edu.ar>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:27:51 -0200
- To: "Michael Kay" <mhk@mhk.me.uk>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Sharon Adler'" <sca@us.ibm.com>, "'Andrew Eisenberg'" <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>, "'Jim Melton'" <jim.melton@acm.org>
I have submitted a new version addressing most of the issues you raised. I do not pretend it to be in final shape yet, but at least we get rid of some bugs. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-godoy-webdav-xmlsearch-01.txt Summary of changes: - Reference W3C.REC-xpath20-20070123 - Change namespace prefix to "WXS" - Use required axes from XQuery. - Set default function namespace to http://www.w3.org/2005/XPath-functions - Set the function signatures as: fn:root($arg as node()?) as node()? [note] fn:not($arg as item()*) as xs:boolean fn:count ($arg as item()*) as xs:integer fn:exists($arg as item()*) as xs:boolean fn:empty ($arg as item()*) as xs:boolean (may be overwritten). - Draw a mechanism for advertising supported functions. [note] because of the expansion for "/" and "//". Again, thanks you for your comments. Javier Godoy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Kay" <mhk@mhk.me.uk> To: "'Javier Godoy'" <rjgodoy@fich.unl.edu.ar>; <www-xpath-comments@w3.org> Cc: "'Sharon Adler'" <sca@us.ibm.com>; "'Andrew Eisenberg'" <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>; "'Jim Melton'" <jim.melton@acm.org> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:40 AM Subject: RE: XPath host language for querying several XML fragments > > > A couple of editorial points first: > > (a) you should surely be referring to the XPath 2.0 Recommendation of 23 > January 2007 rather than the Proposed Recommendation of 21 November 2006. > (I > would also suggest that you avoid referring to a specifically dated > version, > so that you refer the reader to the latest edition at any given time, > which > may incorporate errata.) > > (b) the www-xpath-comments list is intended for comments on XPath 1.0; the > correct list for XPath 2.0 is the public-qt-comments list. > > (c) since the namespace prefix "xs" is often used to refer to the XML > Schema > namespace, it might be clearer to your readers if you chose a prefix other > than "XS" - perhaps "WXS"? > > Now a general policy point: > > (d) there are many people who seem to perceive a need for subsetting > XPath, > with a variety of objectives that usually include (i) reducing the cost of > implementation, and (ii) making it harder for users to specify expressions > that will be expensive to evaluate. The designers of such subsets seem to > come up with a wide variety of different solutions to this problem. This > variety can only confuse users. It also makes it less likely that an > implementor can take an existing XPath implementation and reuse it, which > by > the law of unintended consequences actually increases costs for > implementors. Despite the difficulty of finding a rational basis for > deciding which features to include in a subset and which to exclude, I > think > there is something to be said for having an XPath 2.0 subset defined by > the > responsible W3C working groups (XSL and XQuery) and then strongly > discouraging other groups from defining their own subsets. > > Now some detailed technical points: > > (e) an implementation that does not support descendant, > descendant-or-self, > or "//" is going to be pretty unusable. Searching for elements at > arbitrary > depth is a great user convenience, and is essential in the case of > recursive > document structures. If you're going to make some of the axes optional, I > suggest you choose the same subset as XQuery chose. > > (f) you define the minimum set of functions that an implementation must > supply as being empty (no functions). There are some functions such as > not() > and count() that I would consider absolutely indispensible. > > (g) I don't think the restrictions you propose for numeric predicates > assist > with either of your design objectives (reduced implementation cost, > throttled performance). They just make the language less orthogonal and > less > interoperable. > > This is a personal response, I hope the WGs will produce an official > response in due course. > > Michael Kay > http://www.saxonica.com/
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 16:28:41 UTC