• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: The vision for XPath 2.0
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 15:43:35 +1000
• References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020510081757.037aab58@n...>

From: "Jonathan Robie" <jonathan.robie@d...>

> In practice, I think most people are thinking of XPath 2.0 as the part of 
> XQuery that gets used in XSLT.

It would be better if XQuery were additions to XPath2 to support large
documents on DBMS systems.   XPath2 should not have anything
in it on the assumption/expection that documents are/may be large or 
indexed or valid.  

XPath2 must *limit* itself to XML documents sent over the web:
smallish, unindexed, perhaps with some validity problems that
the host language will want to deal with. 

Even though I sometimes nag that the original XML working group 
and editors did not really invent anything for XML 1.0, 
Tim and the gang showed something far more  valuable than 
imagination: taste.   Tim Bray's "Dare to do less" should be tattooed 
on the retina of every committee member at W3C. 

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

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

• Prev by Date: ODRL (was Re: Patent non-proliferation and disarmament)
• 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