[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XPath/XSLT 2.0 concerns
Jeni Tennison wrote: > The kind of model I favour is one where XPath is broken down into > modules that can be combined when XPath is used in XQuery, XSLT, W3C > XML Schema, XForms, XPointer, user-defined languages and so on. The > most basic module would support only the basic axes, for example; > other modules would build on top of it to add the support required for > the other languages' uses of XPath. +1 I've been wondering for quite a long time now why that isn't compulsory for specs that go beyond the simplistic. DOM has chapters: it's much more manageable that way than if you had to implement all of them and at the same time it still answers its requirements. SVG and XHTML went the same route, and again the result is imho very good. XForms acknowledged that Wouldn't XML Schema be more palatable that way? It might even become a worthy solution if one could eliminate some module to create his own WXS-NoBloodyBrainDeadUnqualifiedLocals-mod. It wouldn't break the deal that the WXS WG made with RSI care purveyors, but it'd already be better. Every spec ought to have a big red "Bloat Button" which would be hit whenever it gets too bloated. Starting from that point, knowing that a committee will never manage to reduce requirements, a number of modules would be created. -- Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...> Research Engineer, Expway 7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
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
|