Re: [whatwg/dom] Proposal - Update XPath to (at least) v2.0 (#903)

I don't think that using Hacker News comments is good for determining that there is a consensus that XPath 1.0 is the right version to use/build on. If you wanted to do something like that you would need to do a survey of companies and hobbyists to see what stacks they are using and if they would use XPath 2.0/3.0/3.1 features if they were available on those stacks (including on web browsers, e.g. when testing via Selenium). Personally, I like the changes that XPath 2.0 made to the language, as it tidied up several things like not being able to do `*:hr` or `processing-instruction(name)` in XPath 1.0.

FWIW, I have recreated the XPath 1.0 grammar using the XPath 2.0 names and structures at https://rhdunn.github.io/xquery-intellij-plugin/specifications/XPath%201.0%20as%202.0%20EBNF%20Grammar.html. It is 47 EBNF symbols, compared to XPath 2.0's 82, 3.0's 108 and XPath 3.1's 126. That document also describes the grammar differences between XPath 1.0 and XPath 2.0.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/903#issuecomment-720108946