- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:36:57 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20639 --- Comment #12 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> --- >I believe that this language would be lighter and much simpler. The paradox is that people love XPath for its lightness and simplicity, and those who love it the most want to add things to it that will make it heavier and more complex. Every feature that's in XQuery but not in XPath is a candidate for adding to XPath. Some such features (e.g. let expressions) have found their way in. If we add all such features, we have destroyed XPath. If we are to add only a few of the features, then we need a very strong view of the role of XPath and how it differs from the role of XQuery, to enable us to decide what goes in and what stays out. The view stated in the specification serves this purpose well: XPath is designed to provide XML navigation capability to augment other things that can be provided (better) by a host language. If we lose that focus, we lose XPath. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 11 January 2013 18:37:02 UTC