[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> One of the things I have understood from this presentation is that it is
> easier to transform XQuery into XSLT than into XQueryX :) ...
That's perhaps putting it a little strong:-) What is true is that
converting XQuery to XQueryX is a lot harder (due to several places
where the XQueryX schema has lurking surprises) than one might have
expected if XQueryX were "just" an alternative syntax. Converting FLWOR
to xsl:for-each/xsl:sort is harder, but no harder than expected in that
case.
I think the real question about whether XQueryX is suitable for teh
original poster is what is needed to express. For example if there is a
need to distinguish @foo and attribute::foo or //bar and
/descendant-or-self::node()/bar Then XQueryX is clearly not going to be
suitable. If there's a need to preserve Xpath2 (: comments :) then
neither
XQueryX nor xq2xml's native XMl format is quite what you want.
David
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
|
