- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:38:13 -0000
- To: "'Michael Kay'" <mike@saxonica.com>, "'Boris Kolpackov'" <boris@codesynthesis.com>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <ccodere@ieee.org>, "'Pete Cordell'" <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
> On the other hand, it might be that everyone ends up > implementing the whole of XPath 2.0 because it's too much of > a pain to implement a subset. That's certainly what I intend to do. On this subject, I do hope that the WG won't end up deciding to require a subset "for the convenience of implementors". That's almost always a bad thing to do. The current spec has an example of it - the rules for defining valid derivation of xs:all types require the processor to treat the order of the xs:all particles as significant, and the spec is quite explicit that this rule is there only for the convenience of implementors. Well, I found it really inconvenient to impose this restriction, so what am I supposed to do? Impose the restriction anyway, despite the fact that it means writing a lot of extra code? Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Received on Sunday, 4 February 2007 09:38:24 UTC