• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XPointer crisis
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:55:34 -0500
• In-reply-to: <20020201123611.D29819@r...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <p05100303b8807575e600@[192.168.155.106]> <1012587257.27106.38.camel@l...> <20020201123611.D29819@r...>

On Friday 01 February 2002 12:36 pm, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > XPointer is a huge beast - a good candidate for a 2.0 spec, but
> > enormous for a 1.0 spec.  I'd be much much happier to see
> > something smaller for a first round.
>
>   Took me one week to implement the near complete support in libxml
> on top of the existing XPath implementation. 

Took me about a week to add XPointer support to XT too (really 
interesting in match patterns ;-)).

Comparatively, I would say that *XPath* is a huge beast.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XPointer crisis
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • XPointer crisis
    • From: "David G. Durand" <david@d...>
  • Re: XPointer crisis
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XPointer crisis
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPointer crisis
• Next by Date: Re: XPointer crisis
• Previous by thread: Re: XPointer crisis
• Next by thread: Re: XPointer crisis
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread