The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: www-archive@w3.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
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| 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 |
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire