At 10:59 07/12/20, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > >On 19/12/2007, at 6:54 PM, Brian Smith wrote: >> Developers are used to seeing subsets of XPath. Almost every XPath >> implementation I have seen has been a subset of XPath; Sometimes the >> explanation was avoidance of DoS (resource consumption) attacks; other >> times, the explanation was "we didn't have the resources to implement >> all of it." So, I think it is reasonable to attempt to use a subset of >> Xpath as a query language. > >Hmm, I'm not sure the latter is a great advertisement for basing it >upon XPath... > >To my mind, XPath 2.0 (which you seem to be referring to) is too >complex to base something like this on; printing the XQuery-related >specs kills too many trees, and it takes a major investment to get up >to speed with it as a user, much less an implementer. While it works >if you're already invested in the XQuery world, my perception is that >this group is still fairly small, and "enterprise" focused.
I must admit that I haven't looked at the draft at all, but it seems strange to me to propose XPath 2.0 for something simple when there is XPath 1.0, and strange to reject any version of XPath based on the fact/opition that XPath 2.0 is too complex. Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
