• To: michael.h.kay@n...
• Subject: Re: The vision for XPath 2.0
• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 18:15:35 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <001101c1f845$489f8410$6501a8c0@pcukmka>(michael.h.kay@n...)
• References: <001101c1f845$489f8410$6501a8c0@pcukmka>

> 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.

If we thought it was final we wouldn't be discussing it at all, we'd
just learn to live with it (or stick with XPath 1 if that seemed more
appropriate). But if things are in flux, surely now's the time for
comments (not on this list though as you've pointed out before:-)

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The vision for XPath 2.0
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>

• References:
  • 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: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
• Previous by thread: RE: The vision for XPath 2.0
• Next by thread: Re: The vision for XPath 2.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread