XSL as a better XPointer

[Micah Dubinko <mdubinko@xxxxxxxx>]

Hello all,

Let me jump in to point out that there are many conceptual similarities
between XSL patterns and XPointer. Also, the sky is blue. :-)

My point is, it would be a shame to have two completely different specs
with so much overlap. It would be a burden not only on the spec writers,
but also on every implementer down the line.

>From what I've heard, the main arguments against this sort of thing are
'XSL patterns are too simple' and 'XPointer is too complex'.

So, how about 'XPointer Level 1' for the XSL spec and 'XPointer Level 2'
for the heavy lifting?

Jonathan Borden wrote:
>         Or in XSL patterns:
> 
>         //chapter[21]/v[12]
> 
>         XSL patterns are a better XPointer (less weight more filling...)

Comments?

.micah


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