Re: [xml-dev] RE: xquery v1.1 tracking xquery x was Re: [xml-dev] RE: De

[James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:45:10 -0600
> Jim Melton <jim.melton@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>>  If you're familiar with the XQueryX syntax, you'll know
>> that the XQueryX expression of a given query requires several times
>> as many characters (keystrokes, bytes, whatever measure you use) as
>> the same query expressed in the human-readable syntax.  I wouldn't
>> call that a "shorthand" ;^)
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>>     Jim
>
>
> I guess the previous post related to James Clark and relax NG, where the
> xml (probably) came first, and an abbreviated syntax was also offered
> as an alternative.

yes thats what I meant ;)

thx for the translation.

>   Whether that model would be of use to xquery I don't know.
> I don't think it was meant that xqueryx was the shorthand for the
> 'freeform' (or so it seems) xquery.

no it wasn't, xqueryx is useful because it makes machine manipulation
of xquery (e.g. code writing code) and interesting alternative  and I
wanted to understand if future versions of xquery dont make future
version of xqueryx impossible ... I agree that there were lessons lost
with xquery but as Mike pointed out perhaps the pain is only exp by
impl and spec writers.

J