Martin Duerst wrote: > 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.
I agree that XPath 1.0 is generally preferable to XPath 2.0. The only reason I chose XPath 2.0 was because I could map FIQL to it without needing any extension functions. You could do the same for XPath 1.0, but you would need at least one extension function to do date comparisons, and another extension function to do convenient case-insensitive string matching. - Brian
