Kimbro Staken wrote:
>
> My concern with an XML syntax is that it becomes extremely verbose and
> difficult to write by hand. The beauty of SQL is that the syntax is very
> compact and you don't get that with an XML syntax language. Just compare
the
> standard Quilt syntax to its XML mapping to see
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:13:53 -0700
"Kimbro Staken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My concern with an XML syntax is that it becomes extremely verbose and
> difficult to write by hand.
Definitely! But this is the nature of XML. I think that the verbosity of
an XML-based XML update language is not tha
>I am not posing a question, the point I am trying to make is that if you
are
>making an update-format (or even a query-format) it should be based
entirely
>on the xml-view (documents and XSLT).
>If, as I have seen some suggest in the archives, you want to do something
>more like SQL, then you sho
Hi.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:40:30 +0200
Gannholm Torbj_rn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I feel I must clarify my position on the conceptual equivalence of a node
> and a field (or a row, or whatever).
> Please note that I think the node and the xml-database is a better way
> because it is more flex
