• To: The Deviants <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: validating against the standard W3C
• From: Al Snell <alaric@a...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 17:31:50 +0000 (GMT)
• In-reply-to: <1008091546.7824.4.camel@w...>

On 11 Dec 2001, Christian Nentwich wrote:

> This is the clearest spec of XPath I've seen, and much easier to read
> than the verbose XPath spec. Then again, maybe XPath lends itself to
> this kind of specification. (denotational semantics)

Formal semantics rocks. I aced a denotational semantics exam after not
attending any of the lectures!

It's one of those things that's not hard to learn - it's a *paradigm*
thing rather than a *learning pages and pages of stuff* thing. You get the
hang, then it all fits together nicely.

Fear not the formalism.

>
> Christian Nentwich
>

ABS

-- 
                               Alaric B. Snell
 http://www.alaric-snell.com/  http://RFC.net/  http://www.warhead.org.uk/
   Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software

• References:
  • RE: validating against the standard W3C
    • From: Christian Nentwich <c.nentwich@c...>

• Prev by Date: RE: validating against the standard W3C
• Next by Date: is possible to declare a nillable decimal?
• Previous by thread: RE: validating against the standard W3C
• Next by thread: Re: validating against the standard W3C
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread