- From: Michael Champion <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 09:15:19 -0400
- To: <www-dom-xpath@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus" <Scott_Boag@lotus.com> To: <www-dom-xpath@w3.org> Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 2:28 PM Subject: [dom-xpath] Competing Proposals Proposal > > I would propose that we create three rough competing proposals for a DOM > XPath: > > 1) Ultra Minimal (e.g. Microsoft/Oracle selectNodes as they exist today). > > 2) Minimal but with separate interface+namespace context support. > > 3) Complete as makes sense (e.g. full context initialization, variable > support, maybe matching, maybe compiled queries, etc.) > OK, how about an informal poll. a) Which of these are *necessary* for the first round of a DOM-compatible XPath API? b) Which are *sufficient* (i.e., we can stop when we get there)? I personally believe that 1 is necessary (backwards compatibility, make the simple cases simple) and 2 is sufficient. 3 would be nice for the next iteration. I could live with any consensus, however.
Received on Monday, 8 May 2000 09:15:49 UTC