RE: W3C's five new XQuery/Xpath2 working drafts - Still miss
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@s...] > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 11:57 AM > To: Dare Obasanjo; Jeff Greif; xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: W3C's five new XQuery/Xpath2 working drafts - > Still missing Updates > >Are there really that many > >businesses that stand to lose that much money if they have > to use XPath for a few more months instead of jumping to > XSLT-with-different-syntax aka XQuery? > > XSLT is not strongly typed, is not set up for function > libraries, and has been rather difficult to optimize for large repositories. I for one would like to see someone elaborate on these points, and relate them back to the original question more clearly: How is XPath's lack of strong typing or functions going to cost anybody money in the next couple of years? Is the difficulty of syntax-level XPath optimization (transforming a query expression into an equivalent expression that can be executed more efficiently) a significant cost factor for real businesses? I accept the desireability of XQuery being a language that can query an XML view of relations, objects, and XML documents/data in a consistent manner. In the long run, a unified notion of "types" has to be developed that transcends all three. What I don't see is a compelling BUSINESS case for prioritizing this above a simple update syntax along the lines of the simple SQL examples that people always cite as what they want to do with XQuery. What am I missing here?
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