- From: David A. Lee <dlee@calldei.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 07:09:11 -0400
- To: Philippe Poulard <philippe.poulard@sophia.inria.fr>
- CC: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, rjelliffe@allette.com.au, xml-dev@lists.xml.org, XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Philippe Poulard wrote: > Hi, > > Kurt Cagle a écrit : >> (<?xml version="1.0" >> encoding="UTF-8"?>,"foo",5^positiveInteger,<bar><bat/></bar>,<!-- foo >> -->) > > Why not writing it directly as a native XQuery sequence ? > ("foo",xs:positiveInteger(5),<bar><bat/></bar>,<!-- foo -->) > 1) it requires an xquery parser to read it ( against use case 4) 2) It is not canonical (use case 6) although the serialized form would be canonical But yes if one were to use a non-XML format for this, the xquery format would be usable one, and I'd rather see "xs:positiveInteger(5)" then "5^positiveInteger" because it is directly parsable by xquery - if only xquery had an eval function :) Overall, I would summarize the comments as 1) A new serialization format for XDM would be useful (no dissenting opinions) 2) A 'pure XML' wrapper style XML format would work well and is suggested by many 3) Several 'non XML' formats have been suggested with various stylistic improvements (namely conciseness) over XML but no technical advantages (IMHO). 4) Suggestions of *multiple* optional formats have been suggested, of which I think (IMHO) the XQuery format is the best contender. But I shall start with just an XML format (first, hold your breath!) and see if I can get some holes poked in that before continueing. Thank you all for your comments ! I hope to get more when I pass the next milestone. -David David A. Lee dlee@calldei.com http://www.calldei.com http://www.xmlsh.org 812-482-5224
Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 11:10:18 UTC