[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Alan Gutierrez wrote:
> * 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 think the other way, start with something minimal, work with it
and find out what is missing.
>
> 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.
I do too, but see above.
> 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.
So, how would an application process match events on an XML stream?
Karl
|
