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

Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0

• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>,xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:54:23 -0400
• In-reply-to: <1055265753.2208.22.camel@ibook>
• References: <3EE611ED.1010200@b...><3EE4D7B1.85D735A9@m...><5.2.0.9.2.20030610170510.00af5aa0@p...><3EE611ED.1010200@b...>

At 07:22 PM 6/10/2003 +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote:

>IMO, complexity is not the main point here. What's happening with XPath
>2.0 is that you're changing the nature of the language, like if you said
>for Java: "the next version will not be interpreted but compiled" or
>"the next version will be dynamically typed" or maybe more to the point
>"you will have to provide a UML model before you can define a class in
>the next version".

OK, I'll bite.

Why would anyone need to use anything analogous to a UML model to use XPath 
2.0?

Jonathan 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Erik Bruchez <erik@b...>
  • xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
  • RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>
  • Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by Date: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Previous by thread: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by thread: Re: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread