[Xpath-ng] xpath-ng requirements

[bryan]

David Rosenborg wrote:

>(Your latest post was off-list, as I believe it was unintentional
>I'll reply to the the list anyway.)
Yeah, I forgot to CC the list


>> I feel somewhat uncomfortable with it in XPath NG as well, but on the
>> other hand if it were XSLT-NG there should be, I suppose, ways of
>> handling (xpath)fallbacks etc. in the XSLT syntax. So I can't say I
feel
>> that comfortable with it there,

>I'm not sure I follow you here. The sole purpose of the import
>facility is to bring functions into the unprefixed world. I don't
>see how fallbacks fit into that picture.
Actually I can't remember why I thought of fallbacks in that context, it
wasn't fallbacks as in function-available() but rather I had in my head
at the time a specific theoretical function and I was thinking hmmm that
needs error handling. This will eat at my head all day, and I should
actually be getting some work done today as well.

>Yes, simpler and more intuitive but not necessarily by doing smaller
>or less complex things even if that's good. 

I'm just feeling very conservative at this point, I don't want too much,
mainly because I feel that not all the limits of what we have, have yet
been reached. 

>> >Well, I believe that conditional expressions are about the least
>>> complex
>> >thing we are discussing for inclusion in XPath NG.

>> Good, I'm glad I've won you over to the side of getting rid of
>> conditional expressions because by doing so one can cut down on
>> complexity. Because after all:


>>  2 Must Improve Ease of Use


>Ehr, no, on the contrary, I think a conditional expressions is
important
>and that it improves the ease of use.

I know, I should have probably had a smiley there somewhere or similar
emoticon. I just figured the absurdity of the statement would be
evidently funny, but I have it seems been living too long in Danmark and
am as a consequence now infected with their sense of humor.

*SIGH*