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 that big problem unless you want to use this update language to store this 'document' as the difference of two other documents and this diff document is 10 times large then the original documents. (for example for versioning) > 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 this. Good example. ;-) > I think the key here is tool support. +1 > If the language encourages the easy development of robust > tools then the need for having a compact easy to type language is less > important. An XML syntax would probably encourage this. So the question is > should an XML update language be written using XML? +1 > Or is a Quilt like > approach more appropriate? What I mean by that is that Quilt was not > designed as an XML syntax language but is simply mapped into XML as needed. What do others think? Lars -- ___________________________________________________________________ Lars Martin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] XML:DB Initiative http://www.xmldb.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact adminstrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------
