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

RE: XML design of ((a and b) or c)

• From: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@x...>
• To: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>, "David Carlisle" <davidc@n...>
• Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:54:24 -0800

The lack of a conformance section in the XPath recommendation makes it
difficult to intuit these things.
We attemted to follow the lead of other groups (DSig in addition to
XSLT).
I would have thought that W3C ownership and its process for review would
have been enough to flush out these comments, but apparently they
weren't.

Anyway, if xml-dev readers have an interest in these things for the
future, please take at look at http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11 and file
comments.  Or for that matter, any other W3C documents. There's a
mailing list for every single one of them.

Leigh.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@s...] 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 4:48 PM
To: Klotz, Leigh; 'David Carlisle'
Cc: xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE:  XML design of ((a and b) or c)

> Let me clarify the XSLT point: XSLT defines functions such as 
> current() which are not in the XPath set.
> Those functions are not prefixed.  XForms and XSLT bear the 
> same relationship to XPath.

Not quite he same relationship. XSLT and XPath were under the same
ownership. For some people, namespaces are all about ownership.

It would have been cleaner if the XSLT functions (as well as the XForms
functions) had been in a different namespace, however, and it would have
set
a better example to other working groups.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• References:
  • RE: XML design of ((a and b) or c)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>