- From: Mark Thornton <mthornton@optrak.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:26:36 -0000
- To: "'priscilla@walmsley.com'" <priscilla@walmsley.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
I can well understand the problems with allowing ancestor in xpath expressions for a streaming processor (as mine is). My current fudge is based on the erroneous example in the primer, but if I ever get time I'll try to convert the implementation to use .. instead (harder to implement, but the intent is much better defined). Regards, Mark Thornton -----Original Message----- From: Priscilla Walmsley [mailto:priscilla@walmsley.com] Sent: 08 March 2002 15:21 To: 'Mark Thornton'; xmlschema-dev@w3.org Subject: RE: Identity Constraints Hi Mark, We did consider it - in fact, earlier drafts of the recommendation allowed you to reference an ancestor (..), which would have met your needs in this case. In the end, it came down to defining a manageable subset of XPath that could reasonably and unambiguously be implemented by schema processors for Version 1, and the ancestor function was removed. The working group is aware that this is a limitation for multi-part keys, and is considering it as a future requirement. Thanks, Priscilla ------------------------------------------------------------------ Priscilla Walmsley priscilla@walmsley.com Vitria Technology http://www.vitria.com Author, Definitive XML Schema (Prentice Hall PTR) ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 12:27:15 UTC