Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ?

["James Tauber" <jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>James K. Tauber wrote:
>>
>> My feeling on the issue is that a spec be developed for tree addressing
>> patterns that serves the needs of both XPointers and XSL patterns. Such a
>> spec could stand apart (but be normative to) both XLink and XSL.
>
>I agree completely.

Is this being considered? There seems to be interest in a convergence
between XSL patterns and XPointers, but will this take the form of a
separate "tree addressing pattern" spec like Paul and I would like?

James
--
James Tauber / jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx      http://www.jtauber.com/
Lecturer and Associate Researcher
Electronic Commerce Network             ( http://www.xmlinfo.com/
Curtin Business School                  ( http://www.xmlsoftware.com/
Perth, Western Australia                ( http://www.schema.net/


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list