At 1:09 pm +0100 1/12/01, Michael Hartle wrote:
>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.
Problem is, we reckon the lexus project (that developed it) is dead.
Now XML:DB is moving over to Apache, it is the perfect time to work out
more ideal techniques for update.
regards Jeremy
--
___________________________________________________________________
Jeremy Quinn Karma Divers
webSpace Design
HyperMedia Research Centre
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.media.demon.co.uk>
<phone:+44.[0].20.7737.6831> <pager:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
