Michael Hartle wrote:
>
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> >Michael Hartle wrote:
> >
> >>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.
> >
>
> As I read
>
> <quote>
>
> > Net result: as it stands right now, I would avoid it as the plague.
> >
> > With proper namespace support, better use of attribute-based semantics
> > and no variables, it would be "decent".
> >
> > I'll try to come up with something because, as it stands, I would be
> > very -1 in basing Cocoon XML persistant capabilities on such a spec.
>
> </quote>
>
> in your first post, I understood that as if XUpdate wasn't a completely
> lost cause, but needed some guidance. Well, if Lexus is dead and XML:DB
> on the way under the Apache umbrella, this looks like an alternative. :-)
My first post was based on a very superficial view of the technology.
My second post was written after a detailed look at the latest spec.
I agree with Jeremy that the ability to modify documents by
adding/replacing document fragments is required.
But I have the perception that it's a matter of adding functionality to
the XML:DB API rather than creating a markup language for it.
Of course, this is only my personal opinion.
--
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]
