• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@r...>
• To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:44:34 -0400

Michael Kay wrote:
>> I think unifying relational data and XML is a good move.
>>     
>
> Unifying it would be. It's mixing it without unifying it that's the problem.
>   

Hmmm, like when you have a C++ program using ODBC, using escapes to get 
SQL strings to fit into C++, and that SQL contains SQL/XML extensions 
that look rather different from conventional SQL, and those SQL/XML 
extensions contain XQueries, with appropriate escaping so it doesn't 
confuse the SQL interpreter?

I agree with you that a pure XML environment really is a lot easier ....

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: "Mukul Gandhi" <gandhi.mukul@g...>

• References:
  • XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: Dmitry Turin <sql4-en@n...>
  • RE: XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: "Mukul Gandhi" <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • Re: XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: Jim Melton <jim.melton@a...>
  • Re: XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: "Mukul Gandhi" <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • Re: XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
  • RE: XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: "Mukul Gandhi" <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • RE: XQuery & Several records (instead of one xml-field)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>