[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer

RE:  ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
I suspect that the number of knowledgable people who have taken a look at the 2.0 data model is drastically smaller than those who have read and understand the 1.0 material.  The sheer size of the XPath 2.0 specifications is a limiting factor.  I suspect that there are a lot of people like myself who are interested, but don't have the time to read such a tomb.  I want 1.) with the ability to extend beyond the limitations.  XPath 1.0 is a good example of that kind of specification.

Engineering is what happens when science and  
mathematics meet politics.  Products are what 
happens when all three meet reality.          

-----Original Message-----
From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@m...]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 1:25 PM
To: michael.h.kay@n...; Elliotte Rusty Harold; Uche Ogbuji
Cc: xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE:  ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer

That's a bad simplification. No one is debating short & ambiguous spec vs. long & detailed spec. 
Secondly, the data model is probably the only part of XPath 2.0 that doesn't have fundamental issues and seems to have received little (if any) complaint from any of the knowledgeable people who have taken a look at it. All in all, bad examples in your email. 
The question is really whether we want 
1.) Consistent and simple yet limited specs (lack of string manipulation functions in XPath is such a gross oversight)
2.) Inconsistent and complex specs that try to be everything to everybody but fall far short (W3C XML Schema, possibly XQuery)
The interesting correlation is that the size of the working groups for both classes of specs are significantly different. 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Michael Kay [mailto:michael.h.kay@n...] 
	Sent: Mon 10/28/2002 10:18 AM 
	To: 'Elliotte Rusty Harold'; 'Uche Ogbuji' 
	Cc: xml-dev@l... 
	Subject: RE:  ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer

	> OK, since you asked for it, here are some of the sections of XPath
	> and XSLT specs which I think only make sense if you understand the
	> input tree to have a direct connection to the actual XML document:
	Perhaps I should ask for a vote: do people on this list prefer the
	simple 3-page James Clark description of the XPath 1.0 data model, with
	all these inherent ambiguities, or the complex 30-page committee-written
	description of the XPath 2.0 data model, which attempts to eliminate all
	such ambiguities by diving into layers of abstraction and formalism?
	I get the impression you lot can't make your minds up.
	Michael Kay
	Software AG
	home: Michael.H.Kay@n...
	work: Michael.Kay@s...
	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>


Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.

Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.