Edit comment LC-1777 for Device Independence Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-1574 Next: LC-1571

Comment LC-1777
Commenter: Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org>

Resolution status:

I am concerned that these documents, especially Delivery Context: XPath Access Functions 1.0, reference and use the facilities only of XPath 1.0 instead of (only; or perhaps in addition to) XPath 2.0.

* The Ubiquitous Web Applications Working Group Charter seems to have been put into effect in October, 2006. At that time, the suite of specifications surrounding XPath 2.0 had reached CR and were transitioning to PR.

* According to that Charter, none of the WG's documents had achieved First Public Working Draft until June, 2004, at which time that suite of specifications had already entered Last Call (the first of two Last Call comment periods).

* The two specifications for which CR transition is being requested entered their Last Call comment periods in October, 2006 (coincident with the apparent effective date of the current Charter of the WG). Again, at that time, the suite of specifications surrounding XPath 2.0 had reached CR and were transitioning to PR.

It is not clear to me why documents being developed during the late stages of XPath 2.0 development and progression chose to use XPath 1.0 instead of XPath 2.0. I can accept the these two documents do not need the full functionality of XPath 2.0 (indeed, they apparently didn't need the full functionality of XPath 1.0, since they chose to subset even that language). However, the availability of (for example) a well-defined data model and of a rich library of functions would seem to have been of sufficient value to justify using (a subset of) XPath 2.0 instead.

It seems that, at one time (implied by Paul Cotton's comment) the documents did reference XPath 2.0, so a deliberate choice must have been made to delete that reference in favor of XPath 1.0.

I don't imagine that, once I have made the XML Query WG aware of the documents and my comments, there will be any sort of formal objection raised -- I certainly have no intent or desire to raise one! But I would, and it's possible that my WG would, appreciate hearing the justification for choosing to base your work on an obsolescent (although not obsolete!) language instead of the more carefully-designed second generation of that language.
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Developed and maintained by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org).
$Id: 1777.html,v 1.1 2017/08/11 06:39:27 dom Exp $
Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to w3t-sys.org