Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Dave Pawson <davep@d...> wrote: > 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. 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
