W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > April 2007

Re: micro operations versus xupdate and xquery update extensions

From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:37:16 +0200
Message-ID: <a0ad8ffe0704140037t19040807kb66fc3a7ee06522f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org

On 4/13/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
> / James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> was heard to say:
> | I am interested in the thinking behind XProc defined micro operations
> | e.g. especially as it pertains to  overlap with  the use of well
> | established (though not necc widely adopted) standards like Xupdate
> | and XQuery update extensions.
> |
> | My preference would be to simplify things and not have micro
> | operations if at all possible.
>
> Unlike Xupdate and XQuery update facilities, the micro operations
> don't update anything, they are really simple, streaming
> transformations.
>
> Does that help clarify things?

yes it does, just trying to map the meme....

so this is akin to a filter?

I can see the benefit of applying pre and post filters to xml
documents wherever they are defined and generated.

will think a bit more about this before responding in full.

cheers, Jim Fuller
Received on Saturday, 14 April 2007 07:37:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:42 GMT