Three Access Language Paradigms

Jonathan Robie jwrobie at
Wed Nov 19 12:03:57 GMT 1997

At 11:54 PM 11/18/97 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>At 09:03 PM 18/11/97 -0500, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>At 11:04 PM 11/18/97 +0000, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>>>Um, why doesn't XLL address all the goals of this thread and then
>>If I remember what I learned in high school rhetoric, I think the burden of
>>proof is on the affirmative!
>Let me rephrase Henry's comment: I suggest that those who are proposing
>brave new query language worlds go have a look at XLL.  It *may* be the
>case that XLL xpointers hit a good 80-20 point in terms of what we'd
>like in a query language and in ease of implementation. -Tim

I agree - XLL pointers may be a good starting point for a query language,
and this would have the advantage of reducing the number of things that
people have to learn. It really *is* a nonprocedural query language,
independent of the implementation language, etc., and it is easy to read.

I am not sure, however, that it "addresses all the goals of this thread and
then some". I'll have to take a closer look at it, and ask myself what it
would take if, at some point, the other 20% needed to be added to it.


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as:
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list