Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variations on the XML syntax

Sean Mc grath wrote:
> 
> I'm afraid I disagree. Sure the XML syntax has plenty of limits but:-
> 
> a) The really simple things were really simple

As they are in the new syntax...

> b) Its use of XML syntax added credence to all the hype about XML

We aren't in marketing. It isn't our responsibility to add credence to the
hype.

> c) It had the "look and feel" of a database "query by example" and
> people understood it almost as soon as they saw it.

In every database tool I know, query by example is a user interface to
SQL. SQL itself is not based on QBE. We are defining the Web/XML
equivalent to SQL and should be concerned primarily with its wide
applicability. 
 
> The XML syntax was a great "on-ramp" to the world of XML rendering and
> transformation. I am personally disappointed to see it go for these
> reasons.

Do you propose also to replace XPointers with nested-element syntax?

<XRef><XAddress><xml:any ID="FOO/></XAddress></XRef>

This, to me, is the fundamental issue: are we going to have three or four
different query languages, some using nested-element syntax and some using
attribute-in-string syntax?

 Paul Prescod  - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

Everything I touch turns into Python.


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list