Subject: [xsl] Re: Reference to functions (Was: RE: XPath 2.0: Collection-Valued Expressions (Was: Re: XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators Version 1.0)) From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 21:30:54 -0700 (PDT) |
Jim Melton <jim dot melton at acm dot org> wrote: > Gentlepeople... > > At 09:57 PM 9/7/2001 -0700 Friday, Dimitre Novatchev wrote: > > > As you'll see from the published data model, there is no current intention > > > to support functions or expressions as a data type in the language. > > > >So, one significant and useful feature has been ignored... > > While I understand why you might be disappointed, you must understand that > there are tradeoffs and the need for balance everywhere. "Ignored" is most > certainly not the right word, since hours of discussion have been undergone. > > > > So there's likely to be syntax akin to XQuery's > > > > > sum(for $i in //item return $i/@price * $i/@qty) > > > >I find this a definite step backawrds from the concise and compact syntax > >of XPath > >1.0. > > We are *not* talking about the syntax of XPath 2.0 here. We're talking > about the specification of "Functions and Operators for XQuery 1.0 and > XPath 2.0"; that is, there are (at least) languages being addressed, not > just one. Then do I need to state the obvious -- that this specification has become a little bit messy... If an Xpath expression will be allowed to contain the functions and operators from this specification, then how can it be a true statement that "We are *not* talking about the syntax of XPath 2.0 here" ? Should I believe that you didn't think about XPath 2.0 at all? And if this specification contributes to the fact that we are not 100% sure "what we're talking about here" then is this positive and useful? > While I want your needs to be met, yours are not the only needs > under consideration. There are people/companies with demonstrated, > articulated needs for a query language more powerful than XPath and we are > trying to address those requirements, too. Trust me, I will not personally > force you to use that new query language ;^) You are more than welcome to > continue using XPath. > > With tongue firmly in cheek, > Jim Thank you for the necessary clarification -- so this is all politics, and politics is always ugly... Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Re: xsl hex conversion, Mike Brown | Thread | [xsl] Re: Reference to functions (W, Dimitre Novatchev |
Re: [xsl] XPath help, John Hurst | Date | [xsl] Re: Reference to functions (W, Dimitre Novatchev |
Month |