RE: XPath conformance? was RE: storing XML files
> -----Original Message----- > From: Evan Lenz [mailto:elenz@x...] > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 8:52 PM > To: Tom Bradford > Cc: Champion, Mike; xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: XPath conformance? was RE: storing XML files > > Just don't pretend that you're any longer in conformance to > the standard. XPath 1.0 Section 6 says in toto: "Conformance XPath is intended primarily as a component that can be used by other specifications. Therefore, XPath relies on specifications that use XPath (such as [XPointer] and [XSLT]) to specify criteria for conformance of implementations of XPath and does not define any conformance criteria for independent implementations of XPath." http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#section-Conformance Also, extension functions are defined in XSLT, not XPath, so neither adding operators or functions to the XPath 1.0 spec is any more or less correct. If you want a "standard" query language for XML DBMS, wait until XQuery comes out, (or get the XML world to agree that XSLT is "the" XML query language, I don't care) then we can argue about each other's conformance. Admittedly, I shouldn't have used the word "conformance" in spinning off this thread. My point was that in a fluid technology/standards situation such as we find ourselves in now, "conformance" is less important than learning what really works. It's time now to figure out what query language syntax/semantics hits the right balance of theoretical rigor, implementation efficiency, end-user understandability, and so forth. The argument "I am more XPath 1.0 conformant than thou" doesn't contribute much to this process. If y'all wanna have a religious war, there are plenty of real ones to choose from these days, sigh.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format