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.
Really?
In case it wasn't clear my comments on XUpdate are: totally useless and
dangerous, there is no need for such a language.
I don't think these comments will likely spark discussions and/or
enhancements on the side of XUpdate :)
I don't think it's even worth the energy since it's the very concept
about an updating language that I find useless for semi-structured data.
Of course, it makes sense for structure data, but here, what it doesn't
make sense is the use of native XML databases to store data that is
easily stored into a relational database.
But I have the impression my thoughts are simply too inflammatory on
data-oriented communities so I'd keep them around here.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
