- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:16:10 -0500
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org, mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 11:35 +0100, Jeni Tennison wrote: > 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. Yes... that's the "remove" option. Perhaps Henry's reply is part of the "justify" option, though I still don't really understand it. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 13:14:29 UTC