RE: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
> I'm sure some XQuery expert would be glad to > exlain us why XQuery is very much different from > XPath ... To sum it up rather briefly, I think XQuery 1.0 is essentially XPath 2.0 plus 1) element and attribute constructors 2) function definitions 3) strong typing Of course (1) is available in a different form in XSLT 1.0, and (2) is available in XSLT 2.0, so you could say that apart from syntax, XQuery is XSLT plus strong typing minus template rules. Those might seem small differences, but I happen to agree with those who believe that the addition of strong typing and the absence of template rules are both very important when it comes to optimizing a query to execute against a large XML database with pre-defined indexes. So I think we're getting closer to the point where the differences between XSLT and XQuery are the minimum differences required by their different areas of application. The syntax could of course be further converged, and I personally would like to see this happen, but people have very strong feelings about syntax. One thing that I've learnt over the last year or two, to my considerable surprise, is that it's far easier to persuade people to change the semantics of a proposed construct than to change its syntax. Of course, the XSLT approach of using an XML-based syntax and the XQuery approach of a text-based syntax both have their advantages and disadvantages, and there's no middle ground between them, which makes convergence difficult. Mike Kay P.S. I didn't announce it on this list, but Saxon 7.0 is available at http://saxon.sf.net/ as an experimental (and partial) implementation of the XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 working drafts.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format