 |
 |
At 22:34 17-06-2002 +0100, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > You mean like the XML format Eliot and I came up with for Type-101 queries > > (see http://www.gils.net/search.html)? > >Like that yes. But not so complex as we don't need <relation> and ><semantic> and <NameOfAttributeIJustInventedOffTheTopOfMyHead> etc. > >Take current CQL and wrap appropriate XML tags around the various bits in >it. Some benefits of Rob's proposal: o Syntax is unambiguous and easy to verify even for non-CS people (I don't think that tools for verifying expressions against BNF specs are commonplace). o It's easy to parse. o It's easy to construct in software. o It can be manipulated in XSLT without resorting to gymnastics. o It's neatly extensible in the future without kludging stuff into a human syntax. o People will never make the mistake of allowing their users to type it in (and hence give Matthew heart palpitations). Note btw that XQuery (or did, last I looked) postulates both a human-friendly syntax and an XML encoding. --Sebastian -- Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/> Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101