- From: Aaron Skonnard <aarons@develop.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 12:20:18 -0600
- To: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>, <www-dom@w3.org>
> > As was pointed out in Dilbert, a no-brainer decision isn't always what you > want... > Agreed. ;) > Yes, an XML querying capability is desirable, and in fact the Traversal > chapter of DOM Level 2 started out as including querying. But the > editorial > team decided that attempting to design this API before the XML Query > Working Group defined the semantics of querying in XML really didn't make > much sense. > Why wait for XQL when we already have an incredibly powerful addressing language in place - XPath 1.0. Plus, if designed with the right extensibility points, it really doesn't matter what the XQL WG decides. I think XPointer's use of schemes is a good example to follow. In the end all addressing/querying languages are about identifying Infoset subsets. That being stated, an API that looks something like this should suffice: NodeList identifyNodes(scheme, expression) > There's also a open question of whether querying really belongs in the DOM > per se -- or should be an API in its own right, which DOMs _and_ other > forms of XML storage could implement. > You're right, the addressing/querying language doesn't belong in the DOM. This is why we have separate standards (XPath, XQL, etc.) that aren't tied to a specific API. It does make sense, however, for different XML APIs (DOM, SAX) to add support for addressing/querying languages if, at the end of the day, they make the API easier to use. I believe that anyone who has used XPath extensively would lobby hard for what I'm suggesting. -aaron
Received on Saturday, 15 April 2000 14:21:51 UTC