Re: Data manipulation languages for XML (was Query Languages ...)

Richard Light (richard@light.demon.co.uk)
Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:29:15 +0000

In message <3.0.32.19971118091934.009f7260@swbell.net>, "W. Eliot
Kimber" <eliot@isogen.com> 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@light.demon.co.uk