(fwd) the mayor of xmltown

On 09-12-01 08:08 AM, Paul Phillips wrote:
> Hello scala-xml -- I did not mean to exclude any xml specialists from
> this discussion, quite the contrary. There is a current thread on
> scala-internals begun by the message below, which so far is coming down
> heavily on the side of altering the relationship. If any XML experts
> would like to weigh in, now would be a good time. (Either on the
> internals list or here, I can forward input if you aren't inclined to
> join internals yourself.)
>
The Road To Hell Resurfacing project is going very well. I don't want to
make any excuses beyond saying it's been a tough most-of-a-year.

To be frank, the inheritance relationship under present discussion has
been one of the heavier straws on the back of every sickly, stunted
metaph^Wcamel of motivation I've managed to bring into the world during
the too-few and too-brief syzygies of spare time and excess brainpower
I've in been able to focus on the Scala XML project.

Enough overwrought metaphors; I can't promise any significant coding
effort in the next few months but I'll certainly engage with the
discussion and be of whatever help I can.

To the present point, I definitely agree that the inheritance
relationship has to be removed or replaced with something much less
confusing. It would be very good to hit the 2.8 launch window.

-0xe1a

(Having a new baby (or is it the sleep deprivation?) seems to put me in
a Vogon Poetry frame of mind...)

On 09-12-01 08:08 AM, Paul Phillips wrote:
> Hello scala-xml -- I did not mean to exclude any xml specialists from
> this discussion, quite the contrary. There is a current thread on
> scala-internals begun by the message below, which so far is coming down
> heavily on the side of altering the relationship. If any XML experts
> would like to weigh in, now would be a good time. (Either on the
> internals list or here, I can forward input if you aren't inclined to
> join internals yourself.)
>
The Road To Hell Resurfacing project is going very well. I don't want to
make any excuses beyond saying it's been a tough most-of-a-year.

To be frank, the inheritance relationship under present discussion has
been one of the heavier straws on the back of every sickly, stunted
metaph^Wcamel of motivation I've managed to bring into the world during
the too-few and too-brief syzygies of spare time and excess brainpower
I've in been able to focus on the Scala XML project.

Enough overwrought metaphors; I can't promise any significant coding
effort in the next few months but I'll certainly engage with the
discussion and be of whatever help I can.

To the present point, I definitely agree that the inheritance
relationship has to be removed or replaced with something much less
confusing. It would be very good to hit the 2.8 launch window.

-0xe1a

(Having a new baby (or is it the sleep deprivation?) seems to put me in
a Vogon Poetry frame of mind...)

On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Paul Phillips wrote:
> But I don't want to touch another line of XML unless I can first
> rip Seq out of the object hierarchy and send it out of XMLtown on a
> rail.

Does this also entail to remove NodeSeq (and move the methods to Node)? What about attribute values then?

Cheers,
--
Normen Müller

Hi, my feeling is that first of all the scala-xml group should develop a paper
which summaries their 'big picture' and the actual state of development. It
should give answers to basic questions like:

- What do we need?
- Features of core Scala language: XML literal, construction, well
formedness, navigation, pattern matching, …
- Used features of JRE/.NET environment: SAX parsing, ...
- Pure xml 1.1 support (http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11) not met by above items:
element, attribute, comment, processing instruction, CDATA,
internal/external entities, ...
- Namespace support (http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names)
- push and pull parsing, DOM
- validation against definitions expressed in DTD, XML schema, Relax NG,
schematron, ...
- data types and data binding according to above definitions (analog JAXB)
- XPath support
- XQuery support
- XSLT support

- How to implement those features (in core language, in packages, as wrapper
for existing jars or .NET solutions , …)?

- Problems with actual implementation state? Especially:
- Class hierarchy
- Pattern matching
- Known bugs (1787, 2326, ...)

- Should we continue projects - what is their
priority (http://lamp.epfl.ch/~emir/projects/):
- schema2src
- xslt2src
- xquery2src
- xinc
- ...

Or fix some bugs.

2009/12/3 Jürgen Purtz :
>
>
> Hi, my feeling is that first of all the scala-xml group should develop a paper
> which summaries their 'big picture' and the actual state of development. It
> should give answers to basic questions like:
>
> - What do we need?
>  - Features of core Scala language: XML literal, construction, well
>    formedness, navigation, pattern matching, …
>  - Used features of JRE/.NET environment: SAX parsing, ...
>  - Pure xml 1.1 support (http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11) not met by above items:
>    element, attribute, comment, processing instruction, CDATA,
>    internal/external entities, ...
>  - Namespace support (http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names)
>  - push and pull parsing, DOM
>  - validation against definitions expressed in DTD, XML schema, Relax NG,
>    schematron, ...
>  - data types and data binding according to above definitions (analog JAXB)
>  - XPath support
>  - XQuery support
>  - XSLT support
>
> - How to implement those features (in core language, in packages, as wrapper
>  for existing jars or .NET solutions , …)?
>
> - Problems with actual implementation state? Especially:
>  - Class hierarchy
>  - Pattern matching
>  - Known bugs (1787, 2326, ...)
>
> - Should we continue projects - what is their
>  priority (http://lamp.epfl.ch/~emir/projects/):
>  - schema2src
>  - xslt2src
>  - xquery2src
>  - xinc
>  - ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

or both...

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Ricky Clarkson <ricky.clarkson@gmail.com> wrote:

Or fix some bugs.

2009/12/3 Jürgen Purtz <juergen@purtz.de>:
>
>
> Hi, my feeling is that first of all the scala-xml group should develop a paper
> which summaries their 'big picture' and the actual state of development. It
> should give answers to basic questions like:
>
> - What do we need?
>  - Features of core Scala language: XML literal, construction, well
>    formedness, navigation, pattern matching, …
>  - Used features of JRE/.NET environment: SAX parsing, ...
>  - Pure xml 1.1 support (http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11) not met by above items:
>    element, attribute, comment, processing instruction, CDATA,
>    internal/external entities, ...
>  - Namespace support (http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names)
>  - push and pull parsing, DOM
>  - validation against definitions expressed in DTD, XML schema, Relax NG,
>    schematron, ...
>  - data types and data binding according to above definitions (analog JAXB)
>  - XPath support
>  - XQuery support
>  - XSLT support
>
> - How to implement those features (in core language, in packages, as wrapper
>  for existing jars or .NET solutions , …)?
>
> - Problems with actual implementation state? Especially:
>  - Class hierarchy
>  - Pattern matching
>  - Known bugs (1787, 2326, ...)
>
> - Should we continue projects - what is their
>  priority (http://lamp.epfl.ch/~emir/projects/):
>  - schema2src
>  - xslt2src
>  - xquery2src
>  - xinc
>  - ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



--
Ricky Clarkson
Java and Scala Programmer, AD Holdings
+44 1565 770804
Skype: ricky_clarkson
Google Talk: ricky.clarkson@gmail.com
Google Wave: ricky.clarkson@googlewave.com

--
L.G. Meredith
Managing Partner
Biosimilarity LLC
1219 NW 83rd St
Seattle, WA 98117

+1 206.650.3740

http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com