I discounted XPath 1.0 pretty quickly not only because of lack of datatyping, but also because it's inherently not URI-friendly (one of my bigger design goals).
Cheers, On 20/12/2007, at 4:32 PM, 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.
-- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
