• To: Erik Bruchez <erik@b...>,xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:25:44 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3EE621F4.2080606@b...>
• References: <1055265753.2208.22.camel@ibook><3EE4D7B1.85D735A9@m...><5.2.0.9.2.20030610170510.00af5aa0@p...><3EE611ED.1010200@b...><1055265753.2208.22.camel@ibook>

At 11:22 AM 6/10/2003 -0700, Erik Bruchez wrote:
>
>This being said, XPath 2.0 is mostly backward-compatible with 1.0, so
>I don't see how the nature of the language is changed.

And in particular, it is mostly backward-compatible in its handling of 
untyped data.

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>

• References:
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
  • RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Erik Bruchez <erik@b...>
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Erik Bruchez <erik@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by Date: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Previous by thread: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by thread: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread