• To: Mike Champion <mc@x...>,xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 06:45:14 -0700
• In-reply-to: <TRGD3X823VNHDLK2LFIF63QKWRFD3V.3cdeadaf@MChamp>
• References: <1861755499334.20020512172932@j...>

At 02:00 PM 5/12/2002 -0400, Mike Champion wrote:
>Nevertheless, if WG's don't define what the minimum interoperability
>profile for a spec is, someone else will step in to do it for
>them.

For XQuery, some people have suggested the following conformance levels:

1. Some implementations use only built-in types, and can not import a schema.
2. Some implementations may not be able to do static type checking.

Do those seem like reasonable conformance levels?

What would be the appropriate conformance levels for XPath 2.0? Or should 
XPath 2.0 be a small conformance level in its own right, without the 
ability to import a schema or do static type checking, and without all of 
the productions of XQuery?

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
• Next by Date: RE: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
• Previous by thread: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• Next by thread: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread