RE: The red box on the XPath 1.0 spec

I agree to the proposals.

 

I remember that in February I wrote a document that listed the current inconsistencies of URL naming. I believe that we concluded that on /TR/xslt, /TR/xpath etc we would create an indexed document and add /TR/xslt10, /TR/xslt-10 etc as redirects to the appropriate standards. I think that is also precisely what Michael suggests below.

 

For reference, the list of current inconsistencies can be found here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-wg/2016Mar/0007.html, it may still serve a purpose to check whether they work correctly after the redirects are in place.

 

Cheers,

Abel

 

 

From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@saxonica.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 6:48 PM
To: Public XSLWG
Subject: The red box on the XPath 1.0 spec

 

ACTION 2016-09-22-002 MK, MSMcQ, Abel: Come up with proposed
language to replace the "red boxes" in the 1.0/2.0 specs;
Sharon to merge/edit the proposals, then ask Carine to implement
the proposal. (XPath 2.0 and beyond need liaison with XQuery WG).

 

 

I think the main problem with the "red box" is not the actual text it contains, but its "in your face" impact.  It is designed to alarm the reader, and I think it does so unnecessarily.

 

Procedurally, I think it can be argued that we agreed that the text should be added, but didn't agree that it should be quite so aggressively presented.

 

Also, I think the "revised 7 September 2015" at the top is misleading: there is nothing to tell the reader that the only "revision" on that date was the addition of the red box.

 

My proposal:

 

(A) Delete the red box. Replace it with a paragraph at the end of the status section, in normal font, perhaps with a low-key box around it to signal that it is a later addition, that says:

 

Status Update (October 2016): Although XPath 1.0 remains widely used, and is referenced normatively from other W3C specifications, readers are advised that later versions exist, and that no further maintenance (including correction of reported errors) is planned for this document. Readers interested in the most recent version of the XPath specification are encouraged to refer to  <http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-3/> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-3/.

 

(B) in the subtite, change "revised 7 September 2015" to "status updated October 2016".

 

Ditto for XPath 2.0 (Objections here are arguably stronger, since the latest XSLT Recommendation refers normatively to XPath 2.0)

 

(C) Short names:

 

The right thing is surely for /TR/xpath/ to point to a short index document that lists the different versions of XPath, and for the short names

 

/TR/xpath10/

/TR/xpath-10/

/TR/xpath20/

/TR/xpath-20/

/TR/xpath30/

/TR/xpath-30/

 

to get you to the specific Recommendation versions.

 

Of course the indirection of /TR/xpath/ to this index document will change the semantics of some existing links (e.g. the Wikipedia article on XPath 1.0) but they will get updated over time.

 

Michael Kay

Saxonica