[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [codelist] Comments on CVA spec WD0.2 21 Nov
I pointed this issue out because I see no reason for us to repeat the experience of the W3C XQuery WG, and I don't want to risk a less than favourable view of the CVA spec from the W3C XSL WG. Also, as CVA is likely to be used as part of XProc pipelines, it would be helpful to users if CVA took the same approach to XPath as XProc does. I think there is a benefit to users in having that kind of consistency. I don't believe the potential XPath 1.0/2.0 issues will be significant in practice, any more than they are now (and while there are potential issues, I don't find in practice that they come up particularly often). Cheers, Tony. On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:40:56 -0000, Paul Spencer <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk> wrote: > I am torn on this one. We need to support XPath 1.0 because of the tool > availability. Supporting only this makes CVA look out of date. Adding > XPath 2.0 support leaves us in a position where we could have > incompatible implementations. We would have to specify the version of > XPath in the CVA file as the same XPath expression can give different > results in XPath 1.0 and 2.0. > > I am beginning to wish I hadn't mentioned this! What benefits does XPath > 2.0 give us apart from looking up to date? I suspect there are some, > such as the ability to select a code list based on the data type of the > XML element. > > Regards > > Paul > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anthony Coates [mailto:abcoates@mileywatts.com] >> Sent: 11 January 2008 10:55 >> To: codelist@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: Re: [codelist] Comments on CVA spec WD0.2 21 Nov >> >> >> Actually, I'm going to suggest that we support both XPath 1.0 and >> 2.0, and do so by leaving the level of support to individual >> implementers. The reason is that, just recently, the W3C XProc >> working group proposed to support XPath 1.0/2.0 and XSLT 1.0/2.0 >> as separate things, and the W3C XSL working group complained. >> The upshot is that XProc now supports XPath generally without >> mandating a specific version, and it is up to implementations to >> then decide what level of XPath support they provide. See >> >> http://norman.walsh.name/2007/11/15/xprocXPath >> http://norman.walsh.name/2007/11/29/xproc >> >> for some discussion of this by Norman Walsh. >> >> Cheers, Tony. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Paul Spencer" <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk> >> To: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>, >> codelist@lists.oasis-open.org >> Sent: 11 January 2008 10:37:04 o'clock (GMT) Europe/London >> Subject: RE: [codelist] Comments on CVA spec WD0.2 21 Nov >> >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: G. Ken Holman [mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com] >> > Sent: 11 January 2008 03:43 >> > To: codelist@lists.oasis-open.org >> > Subject: Re: [codelist] Comments on CVA spec WD0.2 21 Nov >> > >> > >> > Thanks, Paul, for your thoughts on this. >> > >> > At 2008-01-08 09:42 +0000, Paul Spencer wrote: >> > >Sorry it has taken me a while to catch up, but I have now read >> > this draft. >> > > >> > >As a general point, why XPath 1.0, not 2.0? >> > >> > I felt this was an implementation issue. As I understand it, there >> > is only one available implementation of XSLT/XPath 2.0. How about I >> > replace "XPath 1.0" with just "XSLT/XPath", and then the user can >> > choose the level of XSLT/XPath they use in their CVA >> > file? Schematron assumes XSLT/XPath 1.0 and if someone wishes to use >> > a different binding language, they have to say that it isn't. >> > >> > While CVA doesn't need to be implemented in Schematron, it does use >> > XSLT/XPath the same way that Schematron uses XSLT/XPath. >> > >> > I think I'd be more comfortable keeping CVA tied to XSLT/XPath 1.0 >> > for at least CVA version 1.0, but if the committee decides to allow >> > other language bindings, then I'll ask that we have the same >> > language= as Schematron and default it to XSLT/XPath 1.0 and allow >> > users to specify other binding languages. Examples of binding >> > languages can be seen in ISO Schematron section 6.4: the default is >> > "xslt" and the others are "stx, xslt1.1, exslt, xslt2, xpath, xpath2, >> > and xquery. >> >> I am quite happy with that. I was just wondering, not suggesting a >> change. >> -- >> Anthony B. Coates >> Senior Partner >> Miley Watts LLP >> Experts In Data >> UK: +44 (20) 8816 7700, US: +1 (239) 344 7700 >> Mobile/Cell: +44 (79) 0543 9026 >> Data standards participant: genericode, ISO 20022 (ISO 15022 >> XML), UN/CEFACT, MDDL, FpML, UBL. >> http://www.mileywatts.com/ >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your >> TCs in OASIS >> at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >> > -- Anthony B. Coates Senior Partner Miley Watts LLP Experts In Data UK: +44 (20) 8816 7700, US: +1 (239) 344 7700 Mobile/Cell: +44 (79) 0543 9026 Data standards participant: genericode, ISO 20022 (ISO 15022 XML), UN/CEFACT, MDDL, FpML, UBL. http://www.mileywatts.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]