>I am not posing a question, the point I am trying to make is that if you are >making an update-format (or even a query-format) it should be based entirely >on the xml-view (documents and XSLT). >If, as I have seen some suggest in the archives, you want to do something >more like SQL, then you should do straight SQL and nothing else.
There has been no real determination on which direction the spec will take, though right now the tendancy seems to be to want an XML syntax. My concern with an XML syntax is that it becomes extremely verbose and difficult to write by hand. The beauty of SQL is that the syntax is very compact and you don't get that with an XML syntax language. Just compare the standard Quilt syntax to its XML mapping to see this. I think the key here is tool support. If the language encourages the easy development of robust tools then the need for having a compact easy to type language is less important. An XML syntax would probably encourage this. So the question is should an XML update language be written using XML? Or is a Quilt like approach more appropriate? What I mean by that is that Quilt was not designed as an XML syntax language but is simply mapped into XML as needed. >SQL is a real pain, but at least we are used to it. But please don't >transfer its strangeness into an xml-like format. >Tobe Kimbro Staken Chief Technology Officer dbXML Group L.L.C. http://www.dbxmlgroup.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact adminstrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------
