• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• To: Jim Melton <jim.melton@o...>
• Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:49:18 +0100

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:45:10 -0600
Jim Melton <jim.melton@o...> 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.
   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. 




-- 

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: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@g...>

• 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...>
  • Re: RE: xquery v1.1 tracking xquery x was Re: RE: Declarative programming requires a different mindset
    • From: Jim Melton <jim.melton@o...>