Subject: Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variations on the XML syntax From: Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 07:51:29 -0500 |
Sean Mc grath wrote: > > I'm afraid I disagree. Sure the XML syntax has plenty of limits but:- > > a) The really simple things were really simple As they are in the new syntax... > b) Its use of XML syntax added credence to all the hype about XML We aren't in marketing. It isn't our responsibility to add credence to the hype. > c) It had the "look and feel" of a database "query by example" and > people understood it almost as soon as they saw it. In every database tool I know, query by example is a user interface to SQL. SQL itself is not based on QBE. We are defining the Web/XML equivalent to SQL and should be concerned primarily with its wide applicability. > The XML syntax was a great "on-ramp" to the world of XML rendering and > transformation. I am personally disappointed to see it go for these > reasons. Do you propose also to replace XPointers with nested-element syntax? <XRef><XAddress><xml:any ID="FOO/></XAddress></XRef> This, to me, is the fundamental issue: are we going to have three or four different query languages, some using nested-element syntax and some using attribute-in-string syntax? Paul Prescod - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco Everything I touch turns into Python. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variati, Sean Mc grath | Thread | Extended characters in XT, Tomas Eriksson |
Re: Extended characters in XT, Tomas Eriksson | Date | Re: EcmaScript, gone?, Paul Prescod |
Month |