On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 15:13:58 -0700 Kimbro Staken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This hasn't really been considered. > > My personal opinion on it is that XSL-T is awfully cumbersome to write for > use as a query language. XUpdate is cumbersome enough and I actually find > Transquery to be even worse. I'm not a particularly big fan of XQuery > either, but the syntax is at least a little more friendly, even if still > rather cumbersome. The fact that it reinvents the wheel is a separate > issue. > > Yes. this cumbersomeness/here-goes-the-wheel-again is something that 'bothers' a lot of people, self included, not just with XQuery either but a lot of the w3c specs of recent times. going by traffic on xmldev and places i think there's a real and growing need for an effort to extract whatever ore exists in the path/link/pointer/query/x spec-mountain and .... but then who has the resources, not to mention the inclination, to undertake such a Sisyphean task? fortunately(?) we do have the Best Practice guidelines to help out when the specghetti gets a bit too much to handle. cheers peter PS: congrats to you and tom on succesful initiation to apache nation.
