Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working
 > Standards should be based on existing practice; > failing that, there should be ample opportunity for designs to compete. Absolutely. This is, and always has been the crux of the problem with XQuery and company. Yes, in XML we've become used to "standardization" committees that are really research teams, and this is not always bad. We've had some good stuff such as XPath 1.0 emerge, and it actually worked out in the marketplace. Nevertheless, I think it would have been silly to think that XPath atomatically became the sine qua non of simple XML expression languages back in November, 1999. The fact that I'd scoff at an XPath alternative now, (or an XML alternative, for that matter) is because I've seen them succeed in the broad marketplace for me and others. Along comes WXS, invented by committee, and not so much a success in the marketplace. People have come to expect that WXS will have competitors, and that a significant bdy of practitioners will simply cease to be concerned with the continuing development of WXS. I can understand that memebers of the WXS WGs might be defensive about this, but such defensiveness is unwonted. Afer all, I'd be considered a whiner if complained that people chose other software for their XML processing than the software I work on. But you say "that's just a product, not a standard, which is supposed to provide cohesion between products". I'd counter that any time a standardization committee sets out to invent pratice rather than standardize on existing practice, that they are actually productizing and should be subject to the same market dicipline as product developers. So here is XQuery. They insist on building on foundations (WXS and Infoset) which are not clear winners, and brush off the fact that many have decided not to have anything to do with these foundation stones and thus are not ikely to have anything to do with XQuery. Some of us have railed against XQuery in general, and XQuery group members, as I can understand, get defensive and complain that we're not being part of the process of building and improving XQuery. But I am astonished that we should be expected to be so. To many of us XQuery and family are so fundamentally flawed that there is no visible path to remedy. But that should be OK. XQuery is the way it is because many feel that it solves their needs, and that of their customers as they've invented it. Fair enough, but many of us disagree, and I've predicted that whatever else happens, XQuery is going to be subject to the same market discipline as WXS. Speaking for myself, I have very little energy available for all non-paying work in this area, so rather than going through what I think is a time-wasting exercise of reading that towering stack of material and bending my brain until I actually understand it well enough to provide coherent comments, that I'd rather work on a much simpler alternative. I think this POV is borne out by responses such as that of Mike Kay to those who say the entire edifice of baked-in types should be rethought from scratch. Clearly, if Mike Kay is one of the committee members closer to our thinking than others, and if he's also one of the ore publically engaged, and he has the defensive shell on to the idea of fundamental reworking, then we might as well save our breath trying to get the WG to make XQuery and co compatible with our needs. Personally, I think the W3C should have a process step that says: we're inventing too much stuff here, and it seems there are too many competing approaches out there. We should put this work aside for some time to allow practice to develop more thoroughly. Everyone lauds standards by comparison to preceeding, chaotic days when vendors competed ruthlessly with incompatible technologies, forgetting that the key to the success of the eventual standard lay in that very ugly competition. -- Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc. http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com Is XQuery an omni-tool? - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=7620 Gems From the [Python/XML] Archives - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/04/09/py-xm l.html Introducing N-Triples - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-thi nk17/index.html EXSLT by example - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-exslt.html 
|
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
|
|||||||||
