W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xpath-comments@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: comments on XPath 2.0

From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@softwareag.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:25:52 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: "Vun Kannon, David" <dvunkannon@kpmg.com>, "'Kay, Michael'" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>, www-xpath-comments@w3.org
At 12:55 PM 1/7/2002 -0500, Vun Kannon, David wrote:
>After rereading the WD, I see that "element of type $foo" is not correct.
>However, issue 197 uses this kind of syntax, so I may have been misled
>there. I agree that it would be better to have a data model in which types
>and functions were first class objects.
>I agree that evaluate() may be more appropriate in the function set of XSLT
>than core XPath, but won't XQuery need it also? Xlink semantics could also
>be a separate function library.

It is certainly useful in queries, but there are difficulties in supporting 
it with a static type system.

The question, for me, is whether it belongs to the minimum required to 
declare victory. I suspect that it does not.

>Here is a use case for testing facets. Find all the elements whose type
>looks like a US Social Security number (123-45-6789). This is in distinction
>to any text in the document which happens to look like an SS#. Searching
>over a heterogenous collection of documents, what the schema author called
>it is less important than the 'shape'.

Do you think that belongs to the minimum required to declare victory for 
XPath 2.0?

Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2002 15:26:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:09:42 UTC