• To: <uche.ogbuji@f...>,"'Elliotte Rusty Harold'" <elharo@m...>
• Subject: RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
• From: "Martin Soukup" <martin@d...>
• Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 21:50:50 -0500
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <E185qzj-0004lC-00@m...>

>> (This is not a theoretical issue. Microsoft, for 
>> one, has repeatedly used this argument to just IE's non-conformant 
>> handling of white space only text nodes.) I think some parts of the 
>> spec do only make sense if you assume the data model/input tree 
>> actually represents the XML document instead of some modified form of

>> it, but stating this more clearly would be helpful.

>It would be wrong.  XPath should not suddenly gain a coupling to the
>parsing 
>phase.  They are distinct.  Your fundamentalism exludes XPath from many
of >the 
>places where it has been found extremely useful, including invokation
from >DOM.

Although a forced coupling seems wrong to me also, are you saying you
believe there is something wrong with an optional coupling? I think that
mixing Xpath analysis with the parse phase is essential to some
applications of XML. Namely when performance is essential.

Martin.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Re: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: RE: The XML 500 word Challenge
• Next by Date: RE: What is XML For?
• Previous by thread: Re: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
• Next by thread: RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread