Hi Michael, Thanks, for your thoughts. On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Michael Glavassevich <[email protected]> wrote: > Given that the XDM is only constructed from the current element (without its > children), its > attributes and inherited attributes the issues that I previously mentioned > aren't relevant to > CTA because you can always evaluate the XPath on the startElement().
Yes, that's my understanding as well. This, I think makes using PsychoPath simpler for CTA. > With that in mind I think you're proposal to use PsychoPath here is fine, Thanks :) > though might be better to always favour our own built-in XPath support (for > performance reasons) when the expression does fall within the subset and > only use PsychoPath for expressions that Xerces does not handle natively. I agree. Therefore, we could make the native XPath 2.0 subset parser a default for CTA, and we could use PsychoPath for CTA, if a system property is specified, as I wrote earlier. I think, in principle you agree, that using PsychoPath as an additional XPath 2.0 engine, for CTA processing is ok. But, who would write PsychoPath integration for CTA? I would be pleased to write this piece of integration :) Any further suggestions, please? -- Regards, Mukul Gandhi --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
