|Subject:||Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-simple-xml-patch-ops (An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Patch Operations Framework Utilizing XML Path Language (XPath) Selectors) to Proposed Standard|
|Date:||Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:10:36 +0200|
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I strongly disagree. Xpath 2.0 is *much* more complicated than Xpath
1.0. Among free software, there is little implementation (or even
plans) of 2.0. Xpath 2.0 is quite controversial.
I think I disagree. What's controversial is XQuery :-).
The comparison with IPv4/v6 is wrong. If you start from scratch, IPv6 is no more complicated than IPv4 (and it is probably the opposite). Xpath 2.0 is always much more difficult to implement (for instance, it requires schemas).
I though that was truly optional.
Best regards, Julian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: ideas getting shot down, Keith Moore|
|Next by Date:||Re: Renumbering, Iljitsch van Beijnum|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: XML updates Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-simple-xml-patch-ops (An Extensible Markup Language (XML) Patch Operations Framework Utilizing XML Path Language (XPath) Selectors) to Proposed Standard, Lisa Dusseault|
|Next by Thread:||Re: Last Call: draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-iana (DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) IANA Registry) to Informational RFC, Peter Koch|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|