Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: XQuery types was Re: Yet another plea for XUpda
 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Robie > [mailto:jonathan.robie@d...] > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 10:36 AM > To: Dare Obasanjo; Uche Ogbuji > Cc: xml-dev@l... > Subject: RE: XQuery types was Re: Yet > another plea for XUpdate... > > > At 10:09 AM 5/8/2002 -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote: > >I personally fail to see any reason why XQuery > >implementers should go out of their way to try to be > interoperable if > >doing so would require undue difficulty on their end. > > Are you seriously saying that vendors should implement > whatever they want, > instead of implementing the spec, if they find something that > is easier to > implement? Perhaps the W3C should stop writing > "Recommendations" and start > writing "Hints". But I don't see how that leads to > interoperability, and I > think users want interoperability. I remember a few years ago when I first heard about the W3C and the way people kept saying "They aren't a standards body, that's why they write 'recommendations' and not 'standards'". My, how times have changed. Seriously though, you may pontificate all you want but the fact of the matter is that vendors typically do not completely implement standards interoperably in the software industry unless the standard is fairly straightforward to implement and have an organization with teeth enforcing conformance(e.g. Java). C++, C99, SQL, HTML, CSS, etc are all examples of "standards" that have never really been fully implemented by various vendors. Considering that there are over 900 pages of documentation to read before one fully grasps what is actually an XQuery implementation (with more on the way), this doesn't count as straightforward to me. XQuery Requirements 13 XQuery Use Cases 88 XQuery 1.0 (Syntax) 175 XPath 2.0 (Syntax) 149 Functions & Operators 193 Formal Semantics 222 Data Model 59 XQueryX (XML syntax for XQuery) 23 The main reason I bring this up is that I'd like the XQuery WG to think seriously about things like conformance levels and trimming features if they don't want XQuery to end up as yet another standard that vendors pay lip service to. I'm just being a realist. W3C XML Schema has a number of issues that have made interoperability a problem, IMHO considering that XQuery is so tied to it and thus inherits its issues plus has hundreds of its own issues (this isn't an exagerration) I'm wary as to how interoperable it can possibly be. > Please, Dare, if there are things that require undue > difficulty, be very > specific about what they are, and post to our public comments > list. Don't > just implement whatever seems easiest and ignore the spec. > I don't post to public comments lists any more. I have 3 unanswered questions on the W3C XML Schema list. My issues are now discussed with MS W3C representatives and my coworkers since that moves less glacially then expecting an answer from a public comments list. -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off all together. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. You assume all risk for your use. (c) 2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
