- From: Julian Reschke <reschke@muenster.de>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 21:37:48 +0200
- To: "Jonathan Robie" <Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, "Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus" <Scott_Boag@softwareag.com>, <www-dom-xpath@w3.org>
> From: www-dom-xpath-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-dom-xpath-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jonathan Robie > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 10:35 PM > To: Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus; www-dom-xpath@w3.org > Subject: Re: [dom-xpath] XPath or? (was RE: Announcing > www-dom-xpath@w3.org) > > >... > > What kind of bloat are you concerned about, code size or complexity of > implementations? I assume that you aren't concerned about adding a small > handful of calls to the interface, since that wouldn't make a big > difference. If XQL implementations are any guide, it's possible for one > person to implement an abbreviated syntax XPath query engine in > less than a > month, but that *is* significant in terms of time. I think this > API should > be optional. On the other hand, this functionality is being added to many > DOM implementations, and there is clearly benefit in establishing one way > to do this - or am I missing something? I think this is a very good point. The Oracles and Microsofts of this world have implemented this as a useful feature anyway -- the question is just whether we can get them to support a common well-defined API. I'm sure that Steve Muench and Jonathan Marsh would be more than willing to add another standardized XPath query call to their DOMs...
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2000 15:37:56 UTC