- From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:13:32 -0000
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Original Message From: <noah_mendelsohn@> > So, I don't think there's one answer that's clearly the right one for > everyone: you can make good cases both for and against full XPath 2.0, > limited subset, or some sort of variability. A related debate has to do > with whether evaluation should be type-aware. I'm not so worried about a subset, as long as it's OK to plug a fully featured implementation into an application. What I don't like is where a superset is defined, as found in schema regular expressions with character class subtraction (even if it is a nice feature!). Hopefully this can be avoided. Pete. -- ============================================= Pete Cordell Tech-Know-Ware Ltd for XML to C++ data binding visit http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx (or http://www.xml2cpp.com) =============================================
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 13:13:47 UTC