[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)

• To: <xml-dev@l...>,"Joe English" <jenglish@f...>
• Subject: Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@y...>
• Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:55:44 -0800
• References: <001101c18a05$7a438740$465169d5@pcukmka> <200112220241.SAA01512@d...>

Doesn't anyone else see something wrong with THREE different languages with
significantly differing syntax that have roughly the same functionality
(querying) with yet NONE have update or delete semantic? However some people
think that the time has come for XML databases? Interesting..

PS: IMHO, until someone comes up with a language with simple
SELECT-DELETE-UPDATE semantics, XML databases will be the OODBMSs of the new
millenium. I remember being introduced to XML and thinking that the concepts
behind relational databases were more complex than those behind the
hierarchical structures that encompass XML, amazingly enough the W3C has
proved me wrong by producing increasingly complex languages that supposedly
deal with handling XML in databases yet have much less functionality than a
simple language like SQL. *sigh*

--
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #202
All crones with the ability to prophesy will be given free facelifts,
permanents, manicures, and Donna Karan wardrobes. That should pretty
well destroy their credibility.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe English" <jenglish@f...>
To: <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 6:41 PM
Subject: Re:  Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)


>
> Michael Kay wrote:
>
> > To sum it up rather briefly, I think XQuery 1.0 is essentially XPath 2.0
> > plus
> > 1) element and attribute constructors
> > 2) function definitions
> > 3) strong typing
> > Of course (1) is available in a different form in XSLT 1.0, and (2) is
> > available in XSLT 2.0, so you could say that apart from syntax, XQuery is
> > XSLT plus strong typing minus template rules. Those might seem small
> > differences, but I happen to agree with those who believe that the
addition
> > of strong typing and the absence of template rules are both very important
> > when it comes to optimizing a query to execute against a large XML
database
> > with pre-defined indexes.
>
> That makes sense.  XSLT is very difficult to optimize, so
> XQuery has an advantage by virtue of what it leaves *out*.
>
>
> --Joe English
>
>   jenglish@f...
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
    • From: Paul T <pault12@p...>

• References:
  • RE: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
• Next by Date: Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
• Previous by thread: Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
• Next by thread: Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread