• From: Michael Sokolov <sokolov@i...>
• To: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
• Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 15:38:00 -0400

> <Purchase>
>        <Item>10.00</Item>
>        <Item>20.00</Item>
>        <Total>
>              <SumPrecedingItems>
>                   <Value>30.00</Value>
>              </SumPrecedingItems>
>        </Total>
> </Purchase>
The element probably should have been named "SumSiblingItems" to create 
a better analogy.

OK, so what - but the point is that re-inventing XPath as a series of 
named elements will lead you to an exceedingly painful syntax.  If you 
don't need the power of XPath, OK you don't need it.  But sometimes you 
do, and in such cases it doesn't make sense to try replacing it with 
something less elegant just to make the job of a syntax parser 
("assessor"?) easier.

What does your "assessment" step really do anyway?  You didn't say.

-Mike

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: RE: Concerned about the increasing reliance on XPath
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>

• References:
  • Concerned about the increasing reliance on XPath
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • RE: Concerned about the increasing reliance on XPath
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>