W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2003

RE: TR/xquery-operators/#func-doc

From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 17:06:08 -0700
Message-ID: <5C39F806F9939046B4B1AFE652500A3A0559886A@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>

You have to understand that XQuery has no problem with the 99% use of
fn:document that takes a URI and returns a document. However,
fn:document has so many special cases that are almost never used but
complicate the functionality, that we felt fn:doc() is providing the 99%
functionality without all the additional baggage. 

You could see this to be the first stage of a deprecation of
fn:document() in XPath. First, we provide a simpler function. In a later
version, fn:document() may be removed.

At least that's how I personally see the reason for keeping both in
XPath.

Best regards
Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk [mailto:David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk]
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 6:40 AM
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: TR/xquery-operators/#func-doc
> 
> 
> MK>
> > > I'd request that the WG resolve this anomoly.
> >
> > How would you suggest that we resolve it?
> >
> > I mentioned the two alternatives in my email:
> >
> > (a) don't make fn:doc() available to XSLT users
> > (b) impose fn:document() on XQuery users
> 
> I make no recommendations for xquery.
> My solution for xslt+xpath would be not to introduce
> doc() function. Its redundant. document() clearly meets the needs of
> users within that group.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Option (b) isn't really an option: XQuery users don't want
> > the unnecessary
> > baggage of the fn:document() function, especially as it has
> > never been part
> > of XPath.
> 
> I don't understand that. Its' been there since 1.0 AFAIK,
> (but I take xslt+xpath as one beast as you are probably aware).
> 
>  If doc or a modified document function is needed, perhaps
> it could be introduced into xquery? Your interpretation appears to be
> that it is not 'common' to xslt+xpath and xquery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Option (a) creates an unnecessary incompatibility between
> > XSLT and XQuery.
> 
> I guess that you prefer the redundancy then Mike?
> It appears to me to be two functions;
> doc() requested by xquery,
> a nominal variant on document() from xslt+xpath, hence newly created.
>   I don't believe it to be an unnecessary incompatibility
> 
> 
> 
> > This may not matter to you, but we believe it will matter to
> > many of our
> > users. We think it will be very common for people to use both
> > languages as
> > part of the same application.
> 
> That's a view.
> 
> regards DaveP
> 
> -
> 
> 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
Received on Monday, 19 May 2003 23:25:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:24 GMT