• To: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>
• Subject: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:30:44 -0400
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <1E0CC447E59C974CA5C7160D2A2854EC02FECF3A@S...>
• References: <1E0CC447E59C974CA5C7160D2A2854EC02FECF3A@S...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910

Hunsberger, Peter wrote:


> That's exactly my point, if we ever got to the point where we could
> manage graphs (in general) I don't think you'd need to care about trees
> anymore.  

We can manage graphs just fine now, but in some cases it's simply more 
obvious or more efficient or both to take advantage of the tree-nature 
of certain graphs and even to limit yourself to tree structures. Maybe 
one day someone will discover magic graph processing algorithms that 
outperform tree-based algorithms and are simpler to boot, but I kind of 
doubt it.

-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@m...
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim

• References:
  • RE: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>

• Prev by Date: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• Next by Date: Re: RELAX NG pluggable type libraries
• Previous by thread: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• Next by thread: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread