Re: XPath DOM and XPath 2.0 (Was Re: Comments on DOM XPath Interface)

Michael Kay wrote:

>>But speaking again for myself, I point out again that the
>>issue of XPath
>>2.0 has been previously decided by the group, and I see no new
>>significant information on that from Michael Kay, so he needs to make
>>the case and try to overcome some obstacles from long before we had
>>satisfied implementations and other feedback as we do now.
>>
>
>I don't need to do anything of the kind. The WG called for comments, and I
>provided them. If the DOM WG considers that the ground has already been
>covered then it should thank me politely and explain why it has made its
>decision.
>
You are right.  I mistakenly thought with the issue clearly closed in 
the specification you must want to discuss, present cases, etc. and I 
misinterpreted what I thought was an offer to discuss the issues further 
on the public list.

>As it happens, the response to my comments indicates that some members of
>the DOM WG were not up-to-date with the current state of XPath 2.0
>development, so it seems my comments have indeed provided new information.
>But I didn't make my comments because I want to fight any battles, I made
>them because the group invited them. Asking for comments and then getting
>all defensive when comments are made is just childish.
>
I would hope that personal conflicts (and internal W3C interaction) 
might be supressed or taken to email.  I am sorry that this has not 
developed into a productive dialog of the issues.  If you wanted to 
discuss the issues before but now are reluctant, I apologize for the 
explanations of our frustration with XPath 2.0 that may have contributed 
to your reluctance.  I would still like to discuss any issues on this 
list not completely answered to your satisfaction.

I don't know what you mean by "defensive".  For me the key is that there 
should be actual new information and technical dialog being carried in 
the messages.  I would still like to discuss the details of the XPath 
2.0 spec. with you or whomever if the opportunity presents itself, even 
if it turns out to be not in-scope with the current DOM XPath API.  The 
brief discussion did cause me to go back and reread the XPath 2.0 Data 
Model draft but the significant issues still seem to be there as I read 
it.  As before, discussion and new information is what we need to go any 
further with it.

Thanks again,

Ray Whitmer
rayw@netscape.com