[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 01:51 PM 1/3/2002 -0500, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>I want both at the same time, and see no reason I can't have that. :-) For
>the record, I specifically reject any syntax so complicated that I can't
>write it in BBEdit. i.e. no special tools should be necessary to generate
>an XQuery. I'm smart enough to write SQL and XSLT by hand. Why does XQuery
>need to be any more complex than this? That rules XQueryX as it exists
>now, but it could be fixed if that were considered desirable by the
>working group. I'm also flexible enough to accept a completely non-XML
>syntax. But I can't imagine trying to teach and explain this wishy-washy,
>in-between mess that's being proposed.
I think that the computed element constructor syntax should do the trick
for you, then. Since embedding queries in XML documents is important to
you, you will probably want to avoid the angle-bracket syntax for element
constructors.
Jonathan
|
