Subject: RE: XPath's role (Was: Re: [xsl] Re: . in for) From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 19:53:00 -0000 |
> Also, as XPath gets more complicated, XPointer gets more complicated, > doesn't it? There seems to be a lot of stuff in XPath 2.0 that is not > really needed for linking between documents. Even XPath 1.0 makes > XPointers unnecessarily complicated; due to that, I think > there will be > a lot of subsetting of XPointer to filter out complicated XPath stuff. Yes; we have been assuming that there would probably be a need for some kind of XPath 2.0 subset to meet the needs of applications like XPointer. Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XPath's role (Was: Re: [xsl] Re, Brian Smith | Thread | RE: XPath's role (Was: Re: [xsl] Re, Michael Kay |
RE: [xsl] Re: . in for, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] XSLT/XPath 2.0: a USEFUL , Michael Kay |
Month |