RE: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-atompub-fiql-00.txt

Martin Duerst wrote:
> I must admit that I haven't looked at the draft at all,
but 
> it seems strange to me to propose XPath 2.0 for
something 
> simple when there is XPath 1.0, and strange to reject
any 
> version of XPath based on the fact/opition that XPath
2.0 is 
> too complex.

I agree that XPath 1.0 is generally preferable to XPath 2.0.
The only
reason I chose XPath 2.0 was because I could map FIQL to it
without
needing any extension functions. You could do the same for
XPath 1.0,
but you would need at least one extension function to do
date
comparisons, and another extension function to do
convenient
case-insensitive string matching.

- Brian