- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:11:41 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20639 --- Comment #4 from Roger Costello <costello@mitre.org> --- > Are you proposing a new requirement for the next version of XPath? Yes, definitely. The requirement is for modularity, the ability to create reusable parts that can be glued together. > XPath was never intended to be modular Why not? XPath is the ideal language for modularizing, as it so incredibly portable. Please see chapter 7 of "Pearls of XSLT and XPath 3.0 Design" [1] for an example of an XPath program. Although it is a powerful and useful program, it is monolithic and not modular due to the severe limitations of the current XPath design. > I strongly concur with comment #2. XPath was never > intended to be a complete programming language Whether it was an explicit requirement or not, whether it was done knowingly or unknowingly, XPath is now a programming language. I offer this as evidence: 1. XPath functions 2. Sequence of statements 3. Input and output So XPath is a programming language, but with poor modularity. Let's complete the job and make it a modular programming language. [1] http://www.xfront.com/Pearls-of-XSLT-and-XPath-3-0-Design.pdf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 11 January 2013 17:11:47 UTC