Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ?

[Patrice Bonhomme <Patrice.Bonhomme@xxxxxxxx>]

jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx said:
] We already have a non-XML syntax for XPointers and I don't think
] anyone would want to argue for an XML version of an XPointer. 

FYI, we've made an XML version of XPointer. We use it within an XML Query 
Language we are developping in a more general purpose, the Silfide Interface 
Language (SIL). You can have a look to the SIL DTD here (documentation is not 
available) :
	http://www.loria.fr/projets/XSilfide/EN/sil/

In our XML Query Language, we can have both version of XPointers, either the 
'standard' form or the XML encoding form.

jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx said:
] My feeling on the issue is that a spec be developed for tree
] addressing patterns that serves the needs of both XPointers and XSL
] patterns. Such a spec could stand apart (but be normative to) both
] XLink and XSL. 

I Agree.	

-- 
  ==============================================================
  bonhomme@xxxxxxxx               |      Office : B.228
  http://www.loria.fr/~bonhomme   |      Phone  : 03 83 59 30 52
  --------------------------------------------------------------
   * Serveur Silfide  : http://www.loria.fr/projets/Silfide
   * Projet Aquarelle : http://aqua.inria.fr
  ==============================================================



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list