Re: SCXML: XPath vs E4X

Thank you, that's a wise move indeed!
- Torbjörn

On 5/11/07, RJ Auburn <rj@voxeo.com> wrote:
> Torbjörn,
>
> We in the SCXML working group are actually right now in  the middle
> of abstracting out the expression language to make it easy to define
> SCXML interpreters with things like ecmascript+e4x. The current
> thought is to require XPath but allow the use of others easily.
>
>         RJ
>
> ---
> RJ Auburn
> CTO, Voxeo Corporation
> tel:+1-407-418-1800
>
>
>
> On May 11, 2007, at 7:14 AM, Torbjörn Lager wrote:
>
> >
> > In the January 2006 draft I read:
> >
> > "We have not determined how the XML trees that compose the data model
> > will be specified, accessed, and modified. (Candidates include the DOM
> > API, E4X, and XPath.)"
> >
> > In the current draft one gets the impression that you selected XPath.
> > May I ask why you made this choice? Looking at it now, I get the
> > impression that E4X would have been a better choice, since it seems
> > more tightly integrated with ECMAScript. Is there any chance that you
> > will revisit this issue?
> >
> > - Torbjörn
> >
>

Received on Friday, 11 May 2007 11:48:28 UTC