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 this. I think the key here
> is tool support. 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?
There is a role for both XML syntax and other syntax XML Update
languages. The role for an XML syntax is that XML software can easily
produce an updategram. When I have used XSLT code to 'write' SQL, there is a
general need to first create an XML representation of SQL, so the XML Update
language reflects this form.
> 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.
>
And other applications render themselves more naturally to Quilt syntax.
I'd like to see both and let the market decide which, if either, become more
popular.
Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact adminstrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------
