<-prev [Thread] next-> <-prev [Date] next->
Month Index | List Home

RE: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ?

Subject: RE: New/old pattern syntax, why can't we have both ?
From: "James K. Tauber" <jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:31:20 +0800
> Isn't this more work, not less, and still leaves the
> _very_ undesirable situation of having "non-XML" XML?

We already have a non-XML syntax for XPointers and I don't think anyone
would want to argue for an XML version of an XPointer.

My feeling on the issue is that a spec be developed for tree addressing
patterns that serves the needs of both XPointers and XSL patterns. Such a
spec could stand apart (but be normative to) both XLink and XSL.

James

--
James Tauber / jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx      http://www.jtauber.com/
Lecturer and Associate Researcher
Electronic Commerce Network             ( http://www.xmlinfo.com/
Curtin Business School                  ( http://www.xmlsoftware.com/
Perth, Western Australia                ( http://www.schema.net/


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread
<- PreviousIndexNext ->
Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can, James Robertson Thread Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can, Patrice Bonhomme
Modes (or lack thereof), Mark_Overton Date Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can, Patrice Bonhomme
Month