- From: Aaron Skonnard <aarons@develop.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:06:24 -0600
- To: "Michael Champion" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-dom@w3.org>
[inline] > > > Why wait for XQL when we already have an incredibly powerful addressing > > language in place - XPath 1.0. > > Just to be pedantically correct ;~) "XQL" generally means the proposal put > forth by several companies in 1997 in a W3C Note; this basic > syntax was used > in XPath and XSL Patterns, with some modifications. The eventual > product of > the W3C XML Query Language Working Group doesn't have a name yet, > but "XQL" > will probably *not* be it. It is likely to somehow incorporate XPath, but > have considerably more power. > Yes, I agree that term XQL has become overloaded because of its history. I was using it to refer to the work of the XML Query Language WG and not the original notes. I wasn't aware that they weren't planning to use XQL to refer to their work. Any idea why? > I happen to agree that XPath would be a useful basis for a couple of DOM > Level 3 Core methods, e.g. NodeList getElementsByXPath(DOMString > xpathExpression) and a NodeIterator and TreeIterator constructor > that takes > an XPath expression. This idea had just about ZERO support last > summer when > the basic Level 3 agenda was discussed, so if you care about this you'll > have to lobby hard for it. > It's surprising that it would receive such little support. What is the reasoning? FWIW, I believe the API should be more general than something like getElementsByXPath, because 1) XPath expressions return node-sets, which may contain other node types than Element, and 2) it should be able to take other addressing expressions (for future extensibility). I'll start my lobbying... ;) -aaron
Received on Saturday, 15 April 2000 19:09:11 UTC