> IM> In fact FLWR-XQuery has to be mapped to Algebra at some point anyway > > The semantics of XQuery is transparent enough to be able to do this. Hm, isn't the tail waiving with the dog here ? XQuery has to prove compliance with Algebra by giving a mapping, not the other way round ... > Out of curiosity: is there an official document that spells out the > algorithm behind XSLT? Actually I am not aware of anything. However, a number of formalizations of XML standards were done by Phil Wadler, see his publications for more. http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/wadler/topics/recent.html > IM> so why not use XML as a syntax for this ? > > We all seem to agree that for humans FLWR is easier to > understand than XML. Since at this stage people need to understand the > semantics and the expressive power of the proposed language, FLWR seems to > be a message format that is superior to XML :-) Tail waving with dog again. To put it another way: now we have the FLWR-hen, the majority of the XML community becomes aware of the Algebra-egg. This is a very good thing, given the long silence regarding XML Query. A concrete syntax such as FLWR obviously was needed to finally start a discussion. However, semantic changes can only be in the Algebra, and syntax only comes second. ++imReceived on Wednesday, 28 February 2001 18:05:38 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:41 UTC