You know, with as much time as I spend writing C# and ASP.NET you would
think I wouldn't have asked that question.  Oops :)

I believe the suggested replacement to the statement is still a valid
statement although the fact that XPath has found its way into many
languages that have built in XML parsing and transformation does make
Colin's point a bit more interesting.

<M:D/>

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Koberg [mailto:rob@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 9:36 AM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:  XPath is NOT a functional language

Hi,

M. David Peterson wrote:

> Colin,
> 
> I can appreciate your point regarding the true nature of XPath.  It is
a
> valid point.  However, the true "functionality" of XPath can only be
> seen when it is used in conjunction with two languages that are true
> functional languages, XQuery and XSLT.  With this point in mind I can
> easily see how someone could phrase XPath as functional simply because
> it is a crucial member of the functionality of these two languages.
> Without XPath there is no XQuery or XSLT and vice versa.
> 
> I don't know of any other technology that is using XPath at the core
of
> its functionality.  Therefore I don't know if this argument is true
for
> every instance of XPath implementation.  Anyone know of another
> implementation that would not be considered a functional language?

java

http://jaxen.org/

-Rob

> 
> As to your point regarding taking the statement out of the draft...
Why
> not refocus it a bit to state something more on the lines of "XPath is
> at the core center of XSLT and XQuery, two XML-based functional
> languages."  I believe a statement along these lines could satisfy
both
> the technical definition while keeping intact the idea that XPath is a
> crucial member of the XML-based functional languages.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> <M:D/>