- From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:39:02 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
On 6/13/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > The XQuery Update Facility isn't a recommendation yet, and even if it > was, I wouldn't even consider placing that much burden on > implementors. I'm not surprised that p:viewport can be expressed as an > XQuery Update task, but surely it's a small subset of that technology. opps...I missed the @match attribute on first (and second) reading of the spec for p:viewport...which had me a bit at a lost for the use of viewport. in any event, this raises the question of p:insert, p:delete, and p:replace steps.... one suggestion, why not roll up the 3 steos into one step called p:update ? > | p:view-port > | and what about p:read-port ? perhaps a bit too 'active' in meaning. cheers, JIm Fuller
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 18:39:04 UTC