[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sub-tree filtering proposals
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:32:19PM -0400, Phil Shafer wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> >> [...] Given that high-end devices are likely
> >> to just pick up a full implementation (libxml2), the subset
> >> will be broken day one. Even then, the ability of the
> >> device to implement arbitrary bits of XPath logic and
> >> expressions will be an immense and changing burden.
> >Please elaborate.
>
> Here's a recent elaboration:
> >Subsetting will lead to differing subsets. You won't know what you
> >can do until you know what implementation you're talking to. Unless
> >you believe users will restrain themselves and stay within the
> >defined subset.
Either the filter mechanism is standardized or not. I fail to see why
an ad-hoc subtree filtering mechanism is any better or worse compared
to an XPATH subset as long as it is well defined and standardized.
[ The rest of the quoted email does not seem to give any additional
insights why chosing a subset of xpath "will be an immense and
changing burden". Sorry if I missed the important piece. ]
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>