Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Which Will Be Released First, the W3C's XQuery Spec or Lon
 > (c) I don't think there is any evidence that any vendors are deliberately > trying to slow the process down. But I think there might be one or two who > are probably regretting submitting quite so many comments, given the > delays this has caused. Microsoft have probably submitted more comments > than anyone else. [Michael Rys] Actually, I think that the amount of comments was not only our fault. And I still believe that having a standard proposal reviewed in depth and fix problems (or cut/postpone) features is better than having 100 errata shortly after shipping the standard. Best regards Michael PS: You should see the numbers of review comments on a SQL standard draft.... > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Don Demsak [mailto:donxml@g...] > > Sent: 14 October 2004 14:47 > > To: xml-dev@l... > > Subject: Which Will Be Released First, the W3C's > > XQuery Spec or Longhorn? > > > > The following is from my blog entry: > > http://donxml.com/allthingstechie/archive/2004/10/13/1421.aspx > > > > Microsoft has been taking in on the chin recently for the delays in > > releasing Longhorn (including from yours truly), but I'd like to point > > out another 800lb gorilla that should be taken to task for taking too > > long to release a product, the W3C. Some people love to bash > > Microsoft, and typically the same folks look the other way when the > > W3C does something similar. In case you haven't heard, Dare announced > > that XQuery will not be a part of the .Net 2.0 beta 2 release (and the > > final release). The reason, the estimated time that the XQuery spec > > will become a recommendation isn't until late 2005, which is after > > .Net 2.0 will be released. Microsoft got burned badly when they > > released code based on working drafts of XSL back in IE 5.0, and they > > can't let that happen again. In case you don't remember, XSL looked > > like it was ready to go, and very late in the game the W3C members > > decided to rewrite the spec and split it into two (XSLT and XSL-FO). > > I spent years on the VBXML XSLT discussion group trying to explain to > > developers that there were 2 versions of XSL out there, and it was > > very confusing for the majority of developers. > > > > So, Microsoft has decided to be cautious and limit their exposure on > > XQuery and have limited support within SQL Server 2005. I don't blame > > them on this. The XQuery spec has been an official W3C Working Draft > > since February 2001 and is still a Working Draft (over 3 years later). > > It still has to go thru the complete process (Working Draft to > > Candidate Recommendation to Proposed Recommendation and finally W3C > > Recommendation). I don't think it would be beyond some of the > > business on the committee to purposely slow down the recommendation > > process in order to give their companies time to catch up to level of > > support Microsoft has for XQuery. So which one do you think will be > > released first Longhorn or the W3C's XQuery spec? > > > > One of my major complaints with the W3C (and other standards > > organizations) is that they just produce standards, not > > implementations of the standards. I understand that software > > companies have a vested interest in releasing products according to a > > specification, but without having a publicly accessible implementation > > of the spec to work with during the draft process it makes it very > > difficult to create test cases. The writers of the spec have to > > resort to thought exercises to test their ideas. My idea is to marry > > a standards organization with an open source community (think of > > merging the W3C and SourceForge), but put a hard division between the > > two groups. In order to prevent intellectual property leakage from > > the businesses on the standards org side to the open source side, > > individuals from one side can not work on the other (for a given > > spec). This way there is a living example for the standards group to > > work the bugs out of (before it becomes a recommendation), and should > > streamline the specification process. I know licensing can become a > > hairy issue here, so that is why I keep the 2 sides divided. A > > company on the standards committee does not risk exposing its IP to > > the open source implementation, and the reverse should be true too. > > To make this work, the open source project leaders would need to have > > very good access to the working draft committee. In a perfect world, > > there would be at least 2 open source implementations (.Net and Java), > > and even the code based on rejected implementations would be available > > for all (which is something some of the MS MVPs in XML have been > > asking of MS for libraries that were abandoned). > > > > > > Don Demsak > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > > manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> > > > > 
|
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
|
|||||||||
