Re: EXPath meeting - some notes

Hi John,

> I won't be able to attend the EXPath meeting in Prague, but offer the
> following two issues/suggestions that you may care to discuss.

That's a pity; we appreciate what you've done so far for EXPath!

> 1. Standard models for Options/Parameters/Properties
> ...
> In various areas of the XML space we have experience with such a variety of
> representations - some are very awkward, some simple, some highly general.
> From Saxonica's point of view, the last, using the XPath3.0 map type, is the
> most general, as it allows values of many different types (including other
> maps of course), and points to the future, but of course it does limit to
> 3.0+ implementations.

I completely agree with you that maps are both the most convenient and
obvious choice for specifying options in a function. In numerous
modules in BaseX, we decided to support both XML and maps as input;
see e.g. our ft:search function:

  http://docs.basex.org/wiki/Full-Text_Module#ft:search

The XML syntax is the same as the one used for fn:serialize:

  http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions-31/#func-serialize

Maybe the fn:serialize function could as well be extended to use maps
in a future version of XQuery.

I would be interested to hear from other subscribers of this list what
solution you would prefer?

  1. Use XML,
  2. Use maps, or
  3. Allow both representations

My two cents,
Christian

Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 21:43:12 UTC