- From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:50:38 -0800
- To: <michael.h.kay@ntlworld.com>, "Jonathan Robie" <jonathan.robie@softwareag.com>, "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: <www-xml-query-comments@w3.org>, <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
You can write an XSLT transform today that takes XQueryX and generates XQuery. Also note that XQuery has the element {} {} and attribute {} {} constructors that you can use as an alternative to the angle-bracket constructors if you embed XQuery inside XML. Best regards Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Kay [mailto:michael.h.kay@ntlworld.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:58 AM > To: 'Jonathan Robie'; 'Elliotte Rusty Harold'; 'Henry S. Thompson'; 'David > Carlisle' > Cc: www-xml-query-comments@w3.org; xml-dev@lists.xml.org > Subject: RE: [xml-dev] The use of XML syntax in XML Query > > > >>>2. The XPath solution: Make all XQueries look nothing like XML > > >>>documents; i.e. no tags, no elements, no attributes > > >> > > >>Computed element constructor syntax allows this. Here is > > Henry's example > > >>done in computed element constructor syntax, where the > > wrapping element > > >>is in the XML document, and nothing in the query per se > > looks like XML: > > > > > >I haven't seen this before. It does look like a possible solution. > > >However, you still need to eliminate the non-computed > > element constructor > > >syntax, which will still cause all the problems of user > > confusion on its > > >own, even if a non-confusing alternative exists. > > > > I'm not convinced that we need to remove the angle-bracket > > notation for > > element constructors. In queries that are not embedded in an > > XML document, > > I don't think that they cause users to be confused. > > > Is there a possibility of a solution in which the XML-like syntax becomes > pure XML, and is regarded as a preprocessor syntax, so that a query > written > as a well-formed XML document (using element constructors for elements, > processing instructions for PIs, and comments for comments) can then be > translated mechanically into an XQuery expressed as a Unicode string, > which > itself uses no XML-like constructs? > > This would mean the Unicode-XQuery syntax wouldn't need to include all the > XML-like constructs, greatly simplifying parsing, while the XML-XQuery > syntax would be pure XML and therefore manipulable using all XML tools. > The > translation from XML-XQuery to Unicode-XQuery could almost certainly be > specified and indeed implemented in XSLT. > > I think this would also satisfy the real user requirement behind XQueryX. > > OK, there's timescales. But the reason we put drafts out for comment is to > get comments! > > Mike Kay > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2002 13:51:12 UTC