• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:01:13 +0100

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:00:44 +0100
"Michael Kay" <mike@s...> wrote:

> They've done two kinds of extension, as far as I can see:
> 
> (a) new functions, which is unproblematic
> 
> (b) new declarations in the prolog. The rule for a new prolog
> declaration to be unambiguous is that it must start with two keywords
> (for example "declare integrity") where the second keyword does not
> clash with a word that can appear in an operator context (such as
> "and", "then", "as", "with" - the list is quite long and growing
> because of Update and Free Text). They have taken a gamble that the
> words "collection", "integrity", "value", "ordered" will never be
> used in an operator context in a future version of the standard.

Noting this as following the fp thread from David Lee, perhaps
James Clark was right in using Scheme for DSSSL?
Given (a b  c) it is easy to find out what each term is with the
language rules.  
XML follows that idea as Michael shows. 

Lesson there somewhere, that xquery failed to learn.


-- 

regards 

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: RE: xquery v1.1 tracking xquery x was Re: RE: Declarative programming requires a different mindset
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• References:
  • xquery v1.1 tracking xquery x was Re: RE: Declarative programming requires a different mindset
    • From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@g...>
  • RE: xquery v1.1 tracking xquery x was Re: RE: Declarative programming requires a different mindset
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>