- From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:38:08 -0500
- To: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
- CC: "'Frans Englich'" <frans.englich@telia.com>, "'Michael Rys'" <mrys@microsoft.com>, public-qt-comments@w3.org
Michael Kay wrote: >>3) To explicitly mention the upcoming "double" specification >>of the types(in >>the XQuery specs, and the upcoming WXS 1.1), and handle it >>gracefully, by >>perhaps: 1) mention that the definitions are identical; and >>2) to mention >>that the XQuery WG intend to release an errata which replaces >>XDM/F&O's >>definitions with references to WXS 1.1 once it is released. >>(Well, perhaps >>not exactly that, but hopefully the big picture is clear.) >> >>Such a solution would obviously be far from optimal(if at all >>feasible), >> >> > >It's no worse than the current situation where we paper over the cracks >between the syntax of XML 1.1 names and XML Schema 1.0 names in effect by >telling implementors to sort it out as best they can, and referring to an >informal note from the Schema WG for guidance on how to do so. > >In the end, there will always be a few rough edges. > > I agree. But producing rough edges for our users is not a goal. Consistency makes things a lot easier to learn, and makes our specs a lot easier to read. The main question is if we can reasonably use names that will appear in a future Recommendation, based on the assurance from the Schema WG that these types will be there. And I'm sure we'll discuss that extensively next week ;-> Jonathan -- Read my Blog: http://blogs.datadirect.com/jonathan_robie/ Learn XQuery: http://media.datadirect.com/download/docs/ddxquery/tutorial_query.html Learn XQJ (the JDBC for XQuery): http://www.datadirect.com/developer/xquery/topics/xqj_tutorial/ Get DataDirect XQuery: http://www.datadirect.com/products/xquery/
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 14:40:25 UTC