Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Alan Gutierrez wrote: > * Karl Waclawek <karl@w...> [2005-01-18 09:05]: > >>Petr Cimprich wrote: >> >> >>>Perhaps, XPattern could be limited to the first step, as of now. We want >>>a common syntax for patterns to match against streams of events >>>representing XML documents. Once you have a match, you can replace, >>>insert, run templates, callbacks, whatever. > > >>Exactly - the old separation of concerns. > > > Can't we think about how we'd use the langauge? Taking about > what we want to scratch out of XPath is jumping the gun. I think the other way, start with something minimal, work with it and find out what is missing. > > I don't want to have you think that I'm suggesting an STX or > XUpdate like language, so much as I am considering applications. I do too, but see above. > If you don't consider the applications in designing the > langauge, you are not going to have a terribly useful langauge. > > If XPattern is considered analogous to XPath, less all but the > ancstor axis, I don't think it would really make for a stream > pattern matching langauge. So, how would an application process match events on an XML stream? Karl
|
