Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XPath 1.5? (was RE: typing and markup)
 > > Perhaps there is a reasonable ground for advancement in XPath without > > the train wreck of 2.0. > > > > My basic problem with XPath is 2.1.3: "XPath is a strongly typed > > language with a type system based on [XML Schema]." > > > > Perhaps by discarding that mash, it would be possible to > > define a subset > > of XPath 2.0 (and XSLT 2.0) which rescues "the good stuff" without > > inflicting the "baggage" type system. > > > > The committee could then continue to produce whatever complexity they > > felt appropriate, while those of us who prefer our XML > > without the type > > system could continue to get our work done and even advance a > > bit beyond > > XPath 1.0. > > > I get the feeling we have been here before. > > XPath 1.0 / XSLT 1.0 are vastly complicated by having to deal with > namespaces. The namespaces spec is short and looks simple but it was pushed > through with little realisation of the complexities it would cause in > processing XML. My first reaction was that namespaces were so awful no one > would use them and they would wither away, but I was wrong. People did use > namespaces, and XSLT 1.0 had to support them despite the horrible complexity > they caused. On the whole, the community has now learned to cope with this. > > Now we are in the same position with XML Schema. This time it isn't short > and it doesn't look simple, but again people are using schemas increasingly > and we can't wish them away. I don't think it's acceptable, if people go to > the trouble of defining the data types they are using in their documents, > that XPath and XSLT should ignore this information and treat eveything as if > it were text (or guess that it might be a number, as XPath 1.0 does). > Anyway, we get messages every week on xsl-list from people asking how to > manipulate dates. I would love to reduce the complexity of the solution, but > I don't think we can deny that the requirement exists. This sounds like a common sense opening for conformance levels. Let me ask the obverse of your point: for people whose XML/XPath/XSLT tools do not, and don't ever expect to support XSDL, why would the XSL WG shove it down their throats? I am OK with having some extended facility for XPath to address Schema data types. I would have preferred that to be a separate module, spec, etc. But making it a fundamental part of XPath conformance is precisely the buckle in the rails that causes the wreck. -- Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc. http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com Track chair, XML/Web Services One (San Jose, Boston): http://www.xmlconference.com/ DAML Reference - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/05/01/damlref.html RDF Query using Versa - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think10/index.html XML, The Model Driven Architecture, and RDF @ XML Europe - http://www.xmleurope.com/2002/kttrack.asp#themodel 
|
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
|
|||||||||
