Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Dimitre,
I sense a bit of frustration in your remarks; I hope that I'm not contributing to your frustration. I am, however, trying to be realistic. Please let me try a different way to express what I intend to say. The document in question (Functions and Operators for XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0) has several characteristics that are relevant to this discussion (beyond the contents of the document, that is): * It is intended to be used, perhaps in whole and perhaps in part, by two different languages: XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0. * Its two client languages (XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0) have different goals, requirements, and audiences. * It is in its first incarnation and is not being characterized as final; it has been made available publicly precisely to receive the kinds of comments that have arisen on this mailing list. * Its owners of the document (the W3C Working Groups responsible for it) and the editors of the document have a wide range of experiences; some come from pure database backgrounds, some from true document backgrounds, some from academia, some from industry, etc. * It, like every other document will never be perfect, just as no specification will satisfy all possible users, and no product will ever be bug-free. All anybody can do is try to resolve as many requirements as feasible. Among the requirements that must be balanced are those for broader and deeper functionality and those for simplicity and elegance. I should also note that there are multiple possibilities for the progression of the specifications found in the draft we're discussing. It might be published as a distinct document that is referenced by other documents. It might be merged into the XQuery document. It might be merged into the XPath document. Parts of it might be merged into the XQuery document, other parts merged into the XPath document, and still other parts published standalone. The XPath and XQuery documents might be merged with or without the Functions and Operators material. Etc., etc., etc. I am not attempting to predict realistic of possible futures in these remarks (in particular, I have not heard anybody mention merging XPath and XQuery!), just trying to illustrate the breadth of alternatives that might, in theory, occur. Therefore, no, we are not likely to remove "XPath" from the title of the specification. We are much more likely to continue to find ways to balance competing requirements such as those you have raised. Thanks for your on-going interest, Jim At 10:41 PM 9/8/2001 -0700 Saturday, Dimitre Novatchev wrote: > While I want your needs to be met, yours are not the only needs ======================================================================== Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL) Phone: +1.801.942.0144 Oracle Corporation Oracle Email: mailto:jim.melton@xxxxxxxxxx 1930 Viscounti Drive Standards email: mailto:jim.melton@xxxxxxx Sandy, UT 84093-1063 Personal email: mailto:jim.melton@xxxxxxx USA Fax : +1.801.942.3345 ======================================================================== = Facts are facts. However, any opinions expressed are the opinions = = only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of anybody = = else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues at hand. = ======================================================================== XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|
