[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 Drafts

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 17:23:00 -0400
• In-reply-to: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F805C1F971@R...>
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F805C1F971@R...>
• User-agent: Opera7.10/Win32 M2 build 2840

On Tue, 6 May 2003 13:04:36 -0700, Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...> 
wrote:


> What conformance levels mean from the perspective of XQuery has been
> clearly spelled out in the XQuery language working draft for at least
> the past 6 months. If you are unaware of it I suggest reading
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#id-conformance

Clearly?? We *are* talking about the XQuery magnum opus here :-)

"In principle" was the operative point.  My point was that the XQuery WG 
could, in principle, define a "Minimal XQuery" that relaxed the constraints 
of section 2.6.1, something along the lines of (just making this up, 
obviously it's not proper spec-ese):

----------------------------------------------------------
In a Minimal XQuery implementation, the in-scope type definitions consist 
only elements, attributes, and text

A mapping from a Post-Schema Validation Infoset (PSVI) to the Data Model is 
specified in [XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Data Model]. In a Minimal XQuery 
implementation, this mapping maps everything to a string, as God and XML 
1.0 intended.

If the processing of an expression depends on the type of some value, a 
Minimal XQuery implementation raises a dynamic error.

A Minimal XQuery implementation must not raise no freakin' type errors, 
ever.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Of course, this is not likely to happen, but that seems to be something 
like what Joe English and Dave Pawson would have liked to see.

p.s. and somewhat OT:  Since we seem to have opened up the "datatypes and 
XML" permathread, I noticed that even Bruce Eckel is beginning to wonder: 
"if strong static type checking is so important, why are people able to 
build big, complex Python programs (with much shorter time and effort than 
the strong static counterparts) without the disaster that I was so sure 
would ensue? " http://mindview.net/WebLog/log-0025
[The alternative he notes is "strong testing" in the XP sense, not "do your 
own thing."
A similar epiphany is described at 
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=4669]

• References:
  • RE: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts
• Next by Date: Re: XML [expletive deleted]
• Previous by thread: RE: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts
• Next by thread: RE: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread