[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 1:42 PM -0500 1/3/02, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>I do not believe that there is a real need to change XQuery's syntax
>to be an XML-based syntax, the cost of doing so would be high, and
>there would be a very real danger of bogging down the XQuery effort
>entirely. David and Elliott both seem to feel that the computed
>element constructor syntax can be used for their purposes.
>
For me yes, but that's not the point. We are asking you to get rid of
the pseudo-XML syntax. We are not asking you to add a new syntax. If
you deleted the pseudo-XML syntax and relied completely on the
computed element constructor syntax then I'd be happy. Not to mention
this would make the specs smaller, easier to understand, easier to
learn, and easier to implement. I don't see the point here of two
completely equivalent ways to accomplish exactly the same thing,
especially when one of those ways is guaranteed to confuse users and
developers.
And of course, if we just ditched the pseudo-XML syntax completely,
that should not significantly delay the final XQuery spec. I'm saying
take stuff out, not put more stuff in.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001) |
| http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/ |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
