The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: firstname.lastname@example.org
This questionnaire was open from 2006-08-07 to 2006-08-11.
3 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
I would expect the attribute to hold a value in the following syntax
|CSS Selectors, as used in CSS3 (the full deal, with negation and everything)W3C Working Draft 15 December 2005; Last Call Ends 16 January 2006|
|XPath 1.0 because, well, its XML! W3C Recommendation 16 November 1999||3|
|XPath 2.0, because types matter and schemas are good. W3C Candidate Recommendation 8 June 2006; CR ends 28 February 2006|
|XQuery, because SQL is wonderful W3C Candidate Recommendation 8 June 2006; CR ends 28 February 2006|
|IDREF because I would expect it all to be in the same document|
|A URI with a fragment identifier pointing to the ID of the element because anything useful will have an ID, surely|
|A syntax of my own invention, or one you foolishly omitted to list above despite its clear advantages (give details)|
|Responder||I would expect to use||Rationale|
|Chris Lilley||XPath 1.0 because, well, its XML! W3C Recommendation 16 November 1999||widely implemented, and what people expect for XML. IDREF or URI-with-frag are too limiting, and XQuery or Xpath 2 are too heavy just now. Nobody knows CSS3 selectors.|
|Doug Schepers||XPath 1.0 because, well, its XML! W3C Recommendation 16 November 1999||Well supported by XML tools. People already familiar with XSL will already know it.|
|Mohamed ZERGAOUI||XPath 1.0 because, well, its XML! W3C Recommendation 16 November 1999||but only the location subset|