- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:35:22 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
On 15 Sep 2008, at 09:54, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > Dan Connolly writes: > >> Whether they are aliases of XPath 1.0 or XPath 2.0 functions >> makes no difference; they're still aliases. > > I think perhaps you misunderstood. There _is no_ XPath 1.0 function > which has the relevant behaviour. So we have defined an extension > function _for XPath 1.0_ whose functionality is defined to be the > XPath 1.0 equivalent of an XPath 2.0 function. Perhaps Dan's point is that we should use the XPath 2.0 function namespace (http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions) for those functions rather than co-opting them into our own namespace. Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 10:35:59 UTC