Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
Well, of course it is impossible to give an accurate estimation for a technology which is developed in such a closed style, but from the prototype it seems that the new version of XQuery would make a real difference with XML repositories. Poor vendors who're not supporting XQuery. Well, they have no chance to support something, that is not published. Whatever. I'm very glad that XQuery makes such an awesome progress and it seems that the next year will be very interesting! Finally, XSLT gets some real competition and it now looks like XSLT will be used for push processing of mixed content and XQuery would be used for the rest. I'm wondering what will happen to DOM, which currently builds on XPath. Wouldn't it be better for DOM to build on XQuery instead? Isn't DOM just some mini-repository? Many thanks for the information! Rgds.Paul. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Rys" <mrys@m...> To: "Paul T" <pault12@p...>; "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@y...>; <xml-dev@l...>; "Joe English" <jenglish@f...> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 11:09 PM Subject: RE: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long) > This is so interesting! > > If by Microsoft prototype you mean > http://126.96.36.199/xquerydemo/ > > Insert / Delete / Update > > this is really neat stuff! > [Michael Rys] Yes. This is the prototype I refer to. Note however, that the update language there is much behind the current state of the work. > What is the status of UPSERT word? [Michael Rys] We are debating on what to call it and whether to include it as a required functionality. > Is there any paper on W3C website that > contains this word, or this is MS-only thing? [Michael Rys] This is combined work from some people participating in the XML Query WG, Microsoft included. Note however, that the standard disclaimers about no commitment to productization etc apply. > Also, I tried searching for the word 'update' in the > http://www.idealliance.org/papers/xml2001/papers/html/03-01-04.html > but it seems there is no such word in the document. > > Maybe you're referring to some other Jonathan Robie's > XML 2001 talk? [Michael Rys] See http://www.idealliance.org/papers/xml2001/papers/html/05-03-02.html Regards Michael > Rgds.Paul. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Rys" <mrys@m...> > > > Note that XQuery is planning on adding update syntax and semantics (for > an example see the syntax in the Microsoft prototype and Jonathan > Robie's XML 2001 talk) and several people in the working group are > working on it. It probably won't be part of 1.0 though for not delaying > 1.0 even further. > > Best regards > Michael > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:kpako@y...] > > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 21:56 PM > > To: xml-dev@l...; Joe English > > Subject: Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long) > > > > Doesn't anyone else see something wrong with THREE different languages > > with > > significantly differing syntax that have roughly the same > functionality > > (querying) with yet NONE have update or delete semantic? However some > > people > > think that the time has come for XML databases? Interesting.. > > > > PS: IMHO, until someone comes up with a language with simple > > SELECT-DELETE-UPDATE semantics, XML databases will be the OODBMSs of > the > > new > > millenium. I remember being introduced to XML and thinking that the > > concepts > > behind relational databases were more complex than those behind the > > hierarchical structures that encompass XML, amazingly enough the W3C > has > > proved me wrong by producing increasingly complex languages that > > supposedly > > deal with handling XML in databases yet have much less functionality > than > > a > > simple language like SQL. *sigh* > > > > -- > > THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #202 > > All crones with the ability to prophesy will be given free facelifts, > > permanents, manicures, and Donna Karan wardrobes. That should pretty > > well destroy their credibility. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Joe English" <jenglish@f...> > > To: <xml-dev@l...> > > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 6:41 PM > > Subject: Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long) > > > > > > > > > > Michael Kay wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > That makes sense. XSLT is very difficult to optimize, so > > > XQuery has an advantage by virtue of what it leaves *out*. > > > > > > > > > --Joe English > > > > > > jenglish@f... > > >
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