RE: James Clark on Schema
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Melton [mailto:jim.melton@xxxxxxx] > Sent: 05 June 2002 20:50 > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: James Clark on Schema > However, let me suggest some points worth considering: > > * Certain specifications, notably XML Query, must have a > well-defined (XML) > data model in order to be properly specified. > > * It is unreasonable to expect a W3C specification (such as > XQuery) to > adopt as its basis a data model not under control of the W3C, > when there is > a W3C data model that is acceptable. > > * Since XPath 2.0 and XQuery 1.0 are (properly, in my > opinion!) closely > linked, and since XSLT 2.0 (again, properly) depends heavily > on XPath 2.0, > it is difficult to justify using a different data model for > XPath 2.0 and > XSLT 2.0 than for XQuery 1.0. I think this point is highly debatable. 'closely linked' is one view. Hijacked is another. What percentage of xpath2 is in place for XSLT users, and what for xQuery users? > > My conclusion is this: As bad as many observers and > participants think XML > Schema to be, it is appropriate for it to be the basis for > XQuery 1.0, I've no issue with that statement. > XPath 2.0, and XSLT 2.0. Please don't group them so coursely. The needs of the two groups have some overlap. that overlap should, rightly be shared. the remainder should be a part of the xquery recs. To hope that the various Working > Groups will "see > the light" and choose to use a schema-like facility defined > outside the W3C > is highly unlikely. An tremendous investment has already > been made in XML > Schema by many companies (including mine, of course) and I am highly > skeptical that they will toss that investment away lightly. I'm hopeful that time will prove you wrong here. The W3C has many commercial members who may well be capable of recognising a bad investment. > It might be more fruitful for commenters to identify the > appropriate subset > of XML Schema to be used by XQuery 1.0, XPath 2.0, and XSLT > 2.0. That is > something that might cause the Working Groups to pay > attention and alter > their directions. I would prefer the query people on the WG to identify what they need, and take it, leaving xpath and XSLT to grow on the strong base that has been established. I've no desire to see two minimal, but powerful recs be swamped in unwanted additions. Regards DaveP. ******** snip here ************* - NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your system. RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments. Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RNIB. RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227 Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk 14th June 2002 is RNIB Look Loud Day - visit http://www.lookloud.org.uk to find out all about it. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
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