Jeremy Quinn wrote: >The XUpdate language (however flawed) looks to me designed primarily for >inserting stuff into existing fragments, it is not expressive in terms of >adding new documents to collections, or files to filesystems. > >We need to be able to do both!!! > >That said, yes I am very interested in finding an alternative to XUpdate, >but please do not forget that some of what it does is useful and IMHO >relevant. > I guess XUpdate is depending on input as almost every other process of standardization; what about actively participating on the evolution of XUpdate instead of distant, probably unheard evaluation ? I think that Stefanos view should be pointed out to the spec maintainers of XUpdate, in order to try spark discussions and enhancements on the side of XUpdate.
Best regards, Michael --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
