Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 01:36 PM 5/7/2002 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote: >On Tue, 2002-05-07 at 13:23, Jonathan Robie wrote: > > I am not asking you to bless every decision we have made. > >So would you object to a group of developers examining the XPath 2.0 >specification and blessing pieces of it according to a "loose typing >only" criteria? Object? No. This is not something that I personally have time for, but people should feel free to explore ideas. I would suggest that anyone who wants to do that should get very clear on the requirements first, and I think that use cases are a good way to examine requirements. That might also tell you whether there is a real problem to be solved. >That would certainly give you something concrete to respond to while >letting those of us with little fondness for typing establish our own >ground on which to argue. Sure, I like to respond to concrete things. FWIW, I don't think the market is ready for one more XPath, in addition to XQuery 1.0, XPath 1.0, and XPath 2.0. I would predict that an unofficial XPath that is One More Spec to Read will probably be ignored in the long run, much like SML. But my predictions are often wrong. Jonathan
|
