- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:37:58 +0100
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On Nov 10, 2007 2:22 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt> was heard to say: > | Hi all, > | > | Ok for me, but I'd prefer having an @xpath-version for p:pipeline and > | p:pipeline-library. > > That means we have to define what it means for all the possible > combinations of mixed versions on pipelines and libraries imported > into each other. > > If we can avoid that... Imagine we go that way Is it really difficult ? * pipeline or library having @xpath-version 1 calling only @xpath-version 1 : ->same level : no problem (may be warning for implementation relying on xpath 2 engine, that it will be evaluated in backward compatible mode) * pipeline or library having @xpath-version 2 calling only @xpath-version 2 : ->same level : no problem * pipeline or library having @xpath-version 1 calling some @xpath-version 2 OR pipeline or library having @xpath-version 2 calling some @xpath-version 1 : ->whether the processor handle xpath 2 and it has to warn that xpath 1 expressions will be evaluated in backward compatible mode ->whether the processor doesn't handle xpath 2 and then crash The only tricky question : is it hard for implementers using XPath 2 engine to switch to backward compatible mode here and there ? Mohamed -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Saturday, 10 November 2007 13:38:15 UTC