Lists Home |
Date Index |
--- Uche Ogbuji <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jonathan
> > This is interesting, but also what worries me (and
> has worried me all the time.)
> > If the spec doesnt take care of Update, vendors
> will implement their own syntax & semantics, and
> there will be no standard.
> > Then XQuery will _not_ become the SQL of XML.
> I know it's a near hopeless case, politically, but I
> have no idea why there is not more consideration of
> XUpdate in these discussions.
> It is marvelously simple and straightforward to use
> and implement. (Of course, this didn't help
> It does have the added advantage that it's widely
> I think it's far more elegant than all the other
> update proposals I've seen (some of which truly set
> my teeth on edge).
> One problem, for sure, is that the spec needs
XUpdate is an overly verbose XML syntax that only does
updates. This doesn't solve the SQL for XML problem.
On the other hand, this was the original goal of
SiXDML, one which I think it accomplishes rather well.
However, I'm unsure of what its chances of catching on
are due to political reasons. :)
If you are interested in learning more about SiXDML,
subscribe to firstname.lastname@example.org
DISCLAIMER: SiXDML is the result of research work I
did while in school and has no relation to my current
employer. Specifically, it has no relationship with my
day job besides the fact that it is also an XML
technology. Please note the usage of a personal email
account to send this email.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness