Re: native xml processing vs what Postgres and Oracle offer
From: Walter Mitty <wamitty_at_verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:28:51 GMT
Message-ID: <7ndZk.2431$us6.1287_at_nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
> I did reply to him in the first place. Suggested he was barking up the
> wrong tree by fastening on xml, what he called path enumeration and some
> difficulty he imagined to do with "enumerating long strings". I wish
> somebody had told me the same thirty years ago. Maybe he will see the
> forest, maybe he will not.
>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:28:51 GMT
Message-ID: <7ndZk.2431$us6.1287_at_nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
news:RWTYk.1450$yK5.1056_at_edtnps82...
> Walter Mitty wrote:
>> "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message >> news:FnSYk.1428$yK5.5_at_edtnps82... >>> rpost wrote: >>> ... >>>> To which he replied: but a forum message is often a reply, and in that >>>> case, >>>> a reply to a specific other message; this is not a presentation feature >>>> but a basic structural property of his forum (and of USENET as well); >>> For all we know, the OP's forum could be some idiosyncratic mutant, eg., >>> one-user-at-a-time and synchronous. I'd say it would be more useful to >>> consider USENET. >> >> Why wouldn't it be more useful to respond to the OP? Are you trying to >> answer a question raised by the OP, in terms that make sense to the OP? >> Or are you trying to generalize the OP's question into one that is >> relevant across a largwer universe of messages? >> >> >> >
> I did reply to him in the first place. Suggested he was barking up the
> wrong tree by fastening on xml, what he called path enumeration and some
> difficulty he imagined to do with "enumerating long strings". I wish
> somebody had told me the same thirty years ago. Maybe he will see the
> forest, maybe he will not.
>