RE: Future of XQuery and XQuery Update Faclilty

[Thomas Lord]

Daniela Florescu wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> arguing on this mailing list is not a very productive way of spending 
> the time.


I seem to have been misunderstood.  From my perspective, the prior
discussion was information sharing.  I'm new to the game and wondered
about the "rationale" for XQUF as perceived by the community.   I got
a great answer for that.   But then it got to the point where it felt to 
me like
we would shift into arguing -- and that's when I said I bet we agree 
that this
thread is done.

Sorry if something seemed harsh!

-t


p.s.:


>
> If there is a technique that you think XQuery should really adopt, and 
> you really
> care about it, the best way to proceed is to write a proposal, and 
> send it to W3C as
> a technical note. I am sure it will be considered with attention.

I could use (individual, not mailing list) help with that.   I do have
some things to offer but I don't know how to do that efficiently.


>
> Best regards,
> Dana
>
>
>
> On Oct 22, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Thomas Lord wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>> Thomas Lord wrote:
>>>> If, in some context, an XQuery is expected to yield a "plain XML"
>>>> description of pending updates, then it can lazily evaluate these
>>>> results, optimistically performing updates in exactly the manner you
>>>> describe, as the query itself is still running.
>>>
>>> The goal of the update language is to allow XML instances to be 
>>> modified, not to create plain XML descriptions of pending updates. 
>>> What you describe could be useful, but it's a completely different 
>>> problem domain.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>
>> I disagree but I bet we both agree we're at the "leave it at that" 
>> point in very nice conversation.
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> -t
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
>> http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>