- From: <jeroen@tcf.nl>
- Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 22:19:17 +0200 (CEST)
- To: www-dom-xpath@w3.org
> > - it doesn't make too much sense to offer a complete API for parsed XPath > > > queries although this is possible > > What might you add if it was a "complete API"? Interfaces for the > structure so that tools could manipulate it? Yep, that's what I meant. > > - it should cover the complete XPath implementation > Should this include function extensions? (I would think yes). you're right, I have to dig into that. > > - our product is a Java product so the API's are in java which is alright > for > > discussion purposes. > > I think Java is fine. But we should make sure a C++ API of some sort is > defined before we freeze, IMHO. Actually what I meant here is that the example is to start the discussion, I'm in favor of a language independent setup. > Why org.w3c.dom.xpath and not org.w3c.xpath?? (as per my previous mails). Currently we have implemented it on top of DOM, although it was a poor mans choice. I think it should be an integral part of DOM. > > XPathResultIf > > I don't understand the "If" postfix in the names. I assume it has some > significance? Remember this is our implementation which was an example. We use a standard where our interfaces have a suffix If, which obviously is different from the w3c convention. Jeroen ----------------------------- Jeroen van Rotterdam The Connection Factory http://www.xhive.com -----------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2000 16:19:28 UTC