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

RE: comments on XPath 2.0

From: Vun Kannon, David <dvunkannon@kpmg.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 15:42:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <53A3C10BA714D511BA9300805FA7FB2A05112604@usmnyexc05.us.kworld.kpmg.com>
To: "'Jonathan Robie'" <jonathan.robie@softwareag.com>, "'Kay, Michael'" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>, www-xpath-comments@w3.org
I don't think testing facets and evaluate() are minimal. I do think the
right data model is important, even if some features implied by the model
have to wait.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@softwareag.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 3:26 PM
To: Vun Kannon, David; 'Kay, Michael'; www-xpath-comments@w3.org
Subject: RE: comments on XPath 2.0

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
>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?

The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
is unauthorized. 

If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice
contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in
the governing KPMG client engagement letter.         
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2002 05:01:35 UTC

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