[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* Karl Waclawek <karl@waclawek.net> [2005-01-18 09:05]:
> Petr Cimprich wrote:
>
> >Perhaps, XPattern could be limited to the first step, as of now. We want
> >a common syntax for patterns to match against streams of events
> >representing XML documents. Once you have a match, you can replace,
> >insert, run templates, callbacks, whatever.
> Exactly - the old separation of concerns.
Can't we think about how we'd use the langauge? Taking about
what we want to scratch out of XPath is jumping the gun.
I don't want to have you think that I'm suggesting an STX or
XUpdate like language, so much as I am considering applications.
If you don't consider the applications in designing the
langauge, you are not going to have a terribly useful langauge.
If XPattern is considered analogous to XPath, less all but the
ancstor axis, I don't think it would really make for a stream
pattern matching langauge.
As I noted elsewhere, there is a notion in XPath, that of joins,
that might not apply to XPattern. In stream processing there is
a notion of capturing data.
If we keep talking about axis, then we are going to talk about a
subset of XPath, and materializing and releasing trees, which
sounds like an XQuery opimization, or an obvious subset of
XPath, not needing a new language.
--
Alan Gutierrez - alan@engrm.com
|
