Linking Saxon through to exist databaseLiam Quin liam at w3.org
Sun Jan 25 14:39:31 PST 2009
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 01:35:20PM -0500, Robert Koberg wrote: > On Jan 24, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Liam Quin wrote: > >On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 03:23:00PM +0000, Dave Pawson wrote: [...] > This isn't a fair comparison. It was an analogy, not a comparison, I wasn't trying to be fair :-) (maybe I should have mentioned that I also make heavy use of Saxon myself) > And really, how many people in the real world write only > standards based XQuery? A lot I hope. I don't know how to measure it, though. I don't think I've often used extension functions, although collection() and doc() vary between implementations. it depends what sort of thing you're doing -- I have always had a non-XQuery wrapper around my XQuery if it's on the Web. For example, http://www.fromoldbooks.org/Search/ uses a query "preamble" that's generated on the fly from incoming query parameters, and has been through some simple sanity checks. Some people do it through extensions and some don't, I expect, same as for XSLT. I'd like to see more standardisation of the fuzzy area around XQuery, e.g. how to get at query parameters (CGI for example), and some standard function libraries (image-dimensions, get-exif-as-xml, random-number, etc etc) but I admit I haven't written proposals... Anyway, we're probably meandering a bit off topic here :-) Thanks for replying, and sorry if my analogy was a little cononfusing. Liam -- Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ * http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
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