• From: Evan Lenz <elenz@x...>
• To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:24:40 -0700

Mike Champion wrote:
> 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.

The XPath evaluation context includes a function library, not an operator
library (and the former implies no change to the grammar). This is an
important distinction, but I'm ready to be done arguing about it :-)

> 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.

Agreed.

Evan

• References:
  • RE: XPath conformance? was RE: storing XML files
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>

• Prev by Date: XML Startkabel updates
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Adam Bosworth on XML and W3C
• Previous by thread: RE: XPath conformance? was RE: storing XML files
• Next by thread: Re: storing XML files]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread