W3C

Chris Lilley: last responded on 18, August 2006 at 09:46 (UTC)
Doug Schepers: last responded on 18, August 2006 at 09:46 (UTC)
Mohamed ZERGAOUI: last responded on 18, August 2006 at 09:46 (UTC)

Site Navigation

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
Choice	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