Re: XPath Serialization

  Hi John,

 well XPointer Last Call has finished and we are in the last steps
toward moving XPointer to Candidate Recommendation status. Unfortunately
this seems too late now to get this rather radical change to XPointer,
and I suggest you rename your function call. I also suggest you send
your proposal for extension of the XPath library to the XPath comment
list so that it gets added (but under a different name you should suggest)
in the next revision of XPath,

  regards,

Daniel

On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 08:46:12AM -0700, John Boyer wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> XPointer is not a recommendation at this point, so it may be that they will
> see our definition of here() as better for the reasons I mentioned.
> 
> John Boyer
> Software Development Manager
> PureEdge Solutions Inc. (formerly UWI.Com)
> Creating Binding E-Commerce
> jboyer@PureEdge.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin J. Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 11:44 PM
> To: John Boyer; IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG
> Subject: Re: XPath Serialization
> 
> 
> At 00/05/23 11:04 -0700, John Boyer wrote:
> >Hello all,
> >
> >Attached is the latest version of the XPath serialization spec.  The
> >following changes were made:
> >
> >1) Changed character reference rendering to be uppercase hexadecimal with
> no
> >leading zeroes (e.g. 
 instead of 
).  This was decided at the
> >Victoria FTF.
> >
> >2) Added the function here() to the XPath function library based on
> requests
> >by the group at and after the Victoria FTF.  You want to have a look at it,
> >though, because it is defined slightly differently than in the current
> >XPointer draft.  Basically, they define it to return the element containing
> >the attribute or text node that bears the Xpath expression.  I changed that
> >to returning the actuall attribute, text or other node (if you want the
> >element, you can get the parent, but if you are given an element, but it
> has
> >more than one attribute bearing an Xpath, then there is room for ambiguity.
> >
> >I need feedback on this function, esp. from other implementers.
> 
> I'm not an implementer, but it is very clear that defining a function
> with the same name but different behaviour is a very bad idea.
> Either (preferred) just do what XPointer does, or rename your
> function.
> 
> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 

-- 
Daniel.Veillard@w3.org | W3C, INRIA Rhone-Alpes  | Today's Bookmarks :
Tel : +33 476 615 257  | 655, avenue de l'Europe | Linux XML libxml WWW
Fax : +33 476 615 207  | 38330 Montbonnot FRANCE | Gnome rpm2html rpmfind
 http://www.w3.org/People/all#veillard%40w3.org  | RPM badminton Kaffe

Received on Friday, 26 May 2000 12:05:38 UTC