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

Re: micro operations versus xupdate and xquery update extensions

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:17:16 -0400
To: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <87zm58r2kj.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| 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?

Yes, they are filters.

| 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.

Sure. Of course, in a sense, most steps in a pipeline are filters.
What's handy about the micro-operations is that they're designed to
stream well.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 11:17:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:24 UTC