OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Adam Bosworth Article - what does "direct access" m ean?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

It is prettier to look at, I agree, and easier to type. 
But will it work with the ultimate XML subset?  Not 
if the IDs aren't there.

An easier to write program language is a good 
thing.  DOM and SAX and XPath aren't that.  
Again, not new news. 

When does technical elegance become simply less 
power, less flexibility, less descriptive scope?
Which of the various application language WGs should 
have more primacy for deciding the future of 
the XML core itself?  Why is SOAP more important 
than DOCBOOK?  Will the new programming language 
structures cope well with all of these diverging 

I know one shouldn't conflate issues, but given 
all the threads, trends, and working groups, it 
gets harder and harder to rely on the commonality 
of XML systems as what is XML and what are the 
features of an XML processor become increasingly 
dependent on profiles and subsets.

And that is a disaster.


From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com]

>He's right that the code examples are real ugly.
>So the alternatives are?

In XQuery, you can remain loosely coupled while improving the figure/noise 
ratio of your code. The following computes the PE Ratio for IBM:

    let $stock := document("stocks.xml")/stock[@id="IBM"]
    return $stock/price / ($stock/revenues - $stock/expenses)

I do think this is more elegant than the equivalent SAX or DOM. It is no 
more tightly coupled.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS