Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
In message <3.0.32.19971118091934.009f7260@s...>, "W. Eliot Kimber" <eliot@i...> writes > >I'm afraid I don't see how using groves as the fundamental abstraction for >editing is inconsistent with satisfaction of any of the requirements. All >that's needed on top of what DSSSL provides are functions that represent >the editing actions needed (as opposed to modeling editing as a transform, >which is probably not a useful approach). If SQL provides a useful model >for defining such functions, we should use it. I'm perfectly happy with this idea too, and agree that we wouldn't need to add much to DSSSL/SDQL to allow the abstract representation of an editing process. SQL can act as a touchstone for us to check the completeness of the set of additional functions - I'm not sure it is a useful model as such. However, what I am really arguing is that once we have done this, there is still a case for going on to define a more user-friendly SQL-like syntax for specifying data manipulations. This syntax would have exactly the same relationship to SDQL as XSL does: it would be a simple front-end into a subset of SDQL's functionality. Richard. Richard Light SGML/XML and Museum Information Consultancy richard@l... xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
