Subject: Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was: Re: [xsl] RE: syntax sugar for call-template) From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:14:52 -0700 |
> I must admit to being completely confused by XQuery. It seems like > reinventing XSLT but without XML syntax for programming constructs > (admittedly a fair step to take). I thought that it might be that > XQueries are for building XML from things other than XML, but the > XPath-like syntax seems to imply that the source (e.g. database) is > accessed as a node tree anyway. I feel sure that I must be missing > something. On my first glance, I have the same feeling. I think XQuery should do more to reuse the excellent work and practice already latent in XSLT. I don;t have time to read XQuery in detail right now, but it looks like another heavyweight W3C spec that ploughs its own course to solution with not enough mindfulness of, as Simon St. Laurent would put it "interlocking specifications". -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XQuery (was Designs for X, Francis Norton | Thread | Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Uche Ogbuji |
Re: Designs for XSLT functions (Was, Jeni Tennison | Date | RE: [xsl] 2.0 feature request, Evan Lenz |
Month |