Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
0. I don't quite understand what you're talking about, because I thought that XPath 2.0 WD does not exist. http://www.w3c.org/TR/xpath points to XPath v 1.0 Rec and contains zero pointers to XPath 2.0 materials. I'm wondering, is that on purpose? I mean that if going by 'XPath' link from w3c.org main page, nobody could guess that there is any work on XPath 2.0. If going by "XSL" link, it will bring http://www.w3c.org/Style/XSL/ and that page has a pointer to http://www.w3c.org/TR/xpath20req Am I right that when talking about XPath 2.0 WD you're talking about http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/ http://www.w3.org/TR/query-datamodel/ http://www.w3c.org/TR/xpath20req If you have some other URL, related to XPath v 2.0 WD, I'd appreciate if you share it. As to your question , which is, from my point of view "does it make sense to have XPath and XQuery doing the same stuff?" , I should make 2 points: 1. This situation is the exact copy of the situation we had (have) with XSL FO and CSS (both kinda 'do the same' and I should stress out that I'm talking about the XSL FO, not about the XSLT or XSL! ). Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that in that situation ( and probably in the situation with XQuery / XPath) we had (have) 2 big camps, each pushing their own solution, occasionally 'synchronizing' their designs to some degree. XSL FO and CSS got synchronized at some point in exactly the way XPath 2.0 is synchronized with XQuery. 'Synchronization without refactoring' is a style of W3C. Those, who write code for living, should have their opinion on this style. 2. I don't really know if in the 'conflict' between XQuery and XPath one or another 'branch' has any 'right to exist', because I think that those two big guys would join XSL FO / CSS guys on their way to nowhere. Now some ... of course - questionable ... idea and maybe it is just a wrong idea, ... but whatever ... I think that what they've done to XPath 2.0 would result in slow and cumbersome engines that would be possibly implemented only by a few big companies and because XPath 2.0 requirements document (still) has no word 'update' in it, XPath alternatives would emerge next years. I believe that XPath has to be refactored (current 'XPath' is better to be called 'XSelect' ) and I'm working on that right now. Those, who are interested in re-designing XPath so that it may become really 'XPath' ( The Path in The 'XML Three' ), not the interpreter for string operations or god-knows-what they-will-put-in-it-in-version-3 are welcome to write me. Or we can discuss the possible XPath alternatives on this list, if that would not be offtopic. I'm talking about some things like : /some/path[condition]/(this-is-the-nodeset-i-want-to-get)/child[condition] Like it is in perl regular expressions. The idea is that instead of migrating some parts of Perl or Java into XPath interpreter, one should give the clean and convinient API to transfer Chunks of XML ( Nodes, whatever ) to/from XPath interpreter, so that people can use their existing languages, not learning the cumbersome ones. 'Binding is the king'. Perl + DBI / DBD beats any 4GL language e t.c. I see not a sign of this view in W3C WDs, just more magic words to learn every day. Now about the refactoring. Well ... it is good that some individuals at W3C are now suggesting some refactoring of XML, such as throwing out the DTDs. If even refactoring of a holy cow of XML 1.0 is now considered a 'politically correct' statement, I should say that refactoring of XPath looks kinda .. unavoidable ... Current XPath was plain 'XSelect', because XSLT had no need in updates. Now they're 'fixing' XPath with placing more and more functionality into this ill-designed thing. Talk about the 'qwerty' keyboard. And you're now asking is it sane to have XQuery and XPath and XPointer. Of course it is not, it all should be refactored ( and it will be refactored, it will just take a long time ). Sure, I got something wrong and maybe I've made some politically incorrect statements again, but perhaps the very same statements would become politically correct after some time, so I don't really know if I should apologize for something I've said above. Rgds.Paul. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe English" <jenglish@f...> > > Now that XPath 2.0 has been expanded to include most of the > features of XQuery (with the rest already in XSLT), is > a separate query language really needed anymore? > Will anybody ever be able to implement XPointer now? > > But seriously, the new XPath and XSLT drafts look good > to me at first glance (everything on my wish list made > it in :-). Looks like I've got some reading to do... > > > --Joe English > > jenglish@f... > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl> >
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