• To: <michael.h.kay@n...>,<AndrewWatt2000@a...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: The vision for XPath 2.0
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:09:53 -0700
• In-reply-to: <001101c1f845$489f8410$6501a8c0@pcukmka>
• References: <14c.db1abbc.2a0d3930@a...>

At 06:08 PM 5/10/2002 +0100, Michael Kay wrote:
> > Is that is mis-characterisation of the situation?
>
>Yes, it's an absurd caricature.

I agree.


>XPath is now being used in half a dozen different scenarios: not only
>XSLT and XQuery, but XForms, XPointer, DOM, etc. All these scenarios
>have different requirements (or perceived requirements) as to how
>comprehensive the language should be versus how big it should be. There
>is a vision that it should meet everyone's needs for a compact
>declarative expression language for access to the contents of XML
>documents.

Yep.

>It is true that a lot of the intellectual input into XPath 2.0 has come
>from the XQuery effort. But the policy has always been to take those
>parts of XQuery functionality that meet a general need, and leave out
>those that don't. Don't assume that the current boundary as to which
>parts of XQuery are in XPath and which aren't is in any way final: it
>changes by the day.

Absolutely.

Jonathan

• References:
  • The vision for XPath 2.0
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...
  • RE: The vision for XPath 2.0
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: The vision for XPath 2.0
• Next by Date: Re: The vision for XPath 2.0
• Previous by thread: RE: The vision for XPath 2.0
• Next by thread: Re: The vision for XPath 2.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread