• To: Michael Fuller <msf@m...>
• Subject: Re: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
• From: Christian Nentwich <c.nentwich@c...>
• Date: 14 May 2002 14:41:39 +0100
• Cc: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>, Michael Kay <michael.h.kay@n...>, xml-dev@l..., Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>
• In-reply-to: <20020513111316.I6738@i...>
• References: <200205101211.IAA24577@m...> <691569998478.20020510135747@j...> <20020513111316.I6738@i...>

>     I suspect many of the lurking XML-DEVers (and XSL-LISTers, for that
>     matter) are similarly in agreement with Jeni.  Silence doesn't
>     necessarily mean apathy: there's simply been no need to add anything
>     to what Jeni's said, other than a "me too" such as this.
>     (Hmmm: should I also post this to public-qt-comments?)

I'll support that, just to illustrate that Michael has a point. I agree
totally with Jeni's summary. Me too. No duplication of features /
tangling of flow control for me, thanks.

Christian Nentwich

• References:
  • Re: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>
  • Re: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
    • From: Michael Fuller <msf@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Patent non-proliferation and disarmament
• Next by Date: Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
• Previous by thread: Re: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
• Next by thread: Re: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread