[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: MicroXPath proposal
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote: > At any rate, > the ability to return non-nodes was a much-asked-for thing; the general > trend seemed to be to want the language to be simpler, in having fewer > odd quirks, and more flexible. The type system and a few other added > features ended up making it noticeably larger, but there's good in there > too... I got curious just how much larger. On my system, the XPath 1.0 document, which also documents the data model and the available functions, is 37 pages. XPath 2.0 + XDM + F & O is 367 pages. That's an order of magnitude larger, rather than just "noticeably" so. Again, I doubt if I can write down a coherent XPath subset in 3.7 pages, but it would be interesting to try. On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:58 PM, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> wrote: > The only subset of XPath 1.0 that makes sense to me is one that has the goal > of being able to create one path that uniquely identifies any element (and > perhaps attribute) in a document. Something like > Â Â /foo[2]/bar[1]/baz[3] Well, that's something worth having for sure, and even treating specially, because it can be made to return a single Element rather than an iterator. On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net> wrote: > I agree with the above until the last point. Â I also believe that the > "streamable" subset of XPath 1.0 is useful, though of course people > establish such a subset in several ways. Â I'd say XSLT 1.0's pattern > language comes close enough for most uses. Now that's a *very* interesting idea: the path would allow / and //, and the legal path steps are: name, *, @name, @*, text(), and id(name). That's very close to my original proposal. But patterns are no simpler than XPath 1.0 for the implementor, because *any* expression can be a predicate in a pattern, so you end up having to implement the whole of 1.0 anyway. What is the simplest set of predicates that could possibly work? -- GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
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
|