M. David Peterson wrote:
I can appreciate your point regarding the true nature of XPath. It is a
valid point. However, the true "functionality" of XPath can only be
seen when it is used in conjunction with two languages that are true
functional languages, XQuery and XSLT. With this point in mind I can
easily see how someone could phrase XPath as functional simply because
it is a crucial member of the functionality of these two languages.
Without XPath there is no XQuery or XSLT and vice versa.
I don't know of any other technology that is using XPath at the core of
its functionality. Therefore I don't know if this argument is true for
every instance of XPath implementation. Anyone know of another
implementation that would not be considered a functional language?
As to your point regarding taking the statement out of the draft... Why
not refocus it a bit to state something more on the lines of "XPath is
at the core center of XSLT and XQuery, two XML-based functional
languages." I believe a statement along these lines could satisfy both
the technical definition while keeping intact the idea that XPath is a
crucial member of the XML-based functional languages.