On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 02:19:51PM +0200, Tom.Petch <sisyphus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote a message of 135 lines which said: > I question the use of XPath 1.0, when XPath 2.0 was approved at the > start of this year. It seems short-sighted, a bit like choosing IPv4 > over IPv6 I strongly disagree. Xpath 2.0 is *much* more complicated than Xpath 1.0. Among free software, there is little implementation (or even plans) of 2.0. Xpath 2.0 is quite controversial. The comparison with IPv4/v6 is wrong. If you start from scratch, IPv6 is no more complicated than IPv4 (and it is probably the opposite). Xpath 2.0 is always much more difficult to implement (for instance, it requires schemas). > This business of updating parts of an XML document seems to be > cropping up in a number of places in the IETF with very different > solutions. AFAIK, this is the first one to be specified at IETF. Other contenders are: * REX (W3C), which uses DOM events http://www.w3.org/TR/rex/ * Xquery update (W3C) http://www.w3.org/TR/xqupdate/ * XUpdate, which seems completely dead http://xmldb-org.sourceforge.net/xupdate/ * DUL, there was an I-D, "A delta format for XML documents", draft-mouat-xml-patch-00.txt, now expired http://sourceforge.net/projects/diffxml _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf