[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Le jeudi 22 juin 2006 à 08:49 +0100, Michael Kay a écrit :
> > After the so brilliant presentation by David Carlisle at XML
> > Prague, I wouldn't consider XQueryX such an obvious choice
> > any longer :) !
>
> Well, the poster didn't tell us what he was trying to achieve, so it's hard
> to assess.
>
> I'm no great fan of XQueryX, but you wouldn't achieve a better result by
> reinventing it.
One of the things I have understood from this presentation is that it is
easier to transform XQuery into XSLT than into XQueryX :) ...
The reason being that (if I have understood and remember David's points
correctly) XQueryX expands XPath expressions.
If that's so, I guess that an important factor to choose a serialization
format is to know if you need to keep the lexical structure of your path
expressions or if you prefer to see only their expanded versions.
I'd also say that XQ2XML being a trivial XML representation of EBNF
based parsing of XQuery expression can hardly be consider a reinvention!
Eric
--
GPG-PGP: 2A528005
If you have a XML document, you have its schema.
http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceci est une partie de message=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
|
