• To: "'Jeni Tennison'" <jeni@j...>
• Subject: RE: XPath/XSLT 2.0 concerns
• From: "bryan" <bry@i...>
• Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:36:15 +0200
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <168429467091.20021001152357@j...>

>Another thing we could try is to have a switch that makes XSLT 2.0 use
>XPath 1.0. XSLT 2.0 has some really useful stuff (multiple output
>documents, grouping, result-tree-fragments out the window,
>user-defined functions) so it'd be a real shame if we couldn't use
>them just because we wanted to avoid XPath 2.0.


That seems logical to me, they already have the association of
xpath/xquery functions with the
http://www.w3.org/2002/08/xquery-functions namespace uri, perhaps there
could be some namespacing for xpath itself?
 hmm of course allowing people to have any sort of switch like that is a
way of adding complexity to the specification.

We're adding this bit of complexity to the spec so that you can choose
to use the less complex version.

• References:
  • Re: XPath/XSLT 2.0 concerns
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XPath/XSLT 2.0 concerns
• Next by Date: Re: XPath/XSLT 2.0 concerns
• Previous by thread: Re: XPath/XSLT 2.0 concerns
• Next by thread: Re: XPath/XSLT 2.0 concerns
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread