- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:39:38 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6777 --- Comment #19 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com> 2009-04-06 17:39:37 --- (In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #16) > > I think the tools you have to work with have already been identified - you have > > control over the mapping to the data model, and you have control over the > > default element namespace for queries. > > The data model approach would mean that you could never even in the future > write unified XPath expressions for both text/html and application/xhtml+xml > DOMs. I don't understand this argument. You want us to treat these as though they have the same name. You have control over the XDM that is used for processing. You can give them the same name in the XDM. If you want to say they sort of have the same name, I don't think XPath can help you, because we have no concept of sort of having the same name. If your design requires a data model in which names that are different are considered the same, I think you might want to explore whether that design can be changed. > As for the default namespace, if there's a way how I could hack the XPath 2.0 > default element namespace behavior into an XPath 1.0 processor, I'd be > interested in exploring that approach. Requiring the XPath 1.0 processor to be > replaced with an XPath 2.0 processor entirely is not a feasible first step. That's a much less radical change to the DOM than the change you are asking for in XPath. Changing the fact that a nametest matches a node that has th same name is not a feasible first step either. > How far away from approximating XPath 2.0 in the Compatibility Mode with > http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml as the default namespace would the result be if > the check was: > If the document is an HTML document and a name expression is being compared > against an element, behave as if "" namespace on the expression side were the > "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" namespace. > ? How far from the current definition of integer addition would it be to say that 2 + 2 = 5 if the integers are drawn from a particular domain? Our operators are defined purely in terms of our data model. They never look to see where the data model came from - in fact, there's nothing in our data model to tell us where its data originally came from. That's how it should be. I think you should treat the semantics of XQuery 1.0, XPath 1.0, and XPath 1.1 as a given, these are existing recommendations with many users. Jonathan -- 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 Monday, 6 April 2009 17:39:52 UTC