W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > January 2011

[Bug 11682] under-specification of func-available-environment-variables and unc-available-environment-variable

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:42:27 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Pf919-0005X3-Q3@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11682

--- Comment #15 from John Snelson <john.snelson@marklogic.com> 2011-01-18 10:42:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > I think those functions should be eliminated from the standard for the
> > > following reasons:
> > > - they are not part of any user requirements
> > 
> > Clearly not the case.
> 
> Dear John,
> 
> the W3C has a very specific was to describe requirements. It is called the
> Requirement document.
> 
> Here is the link to it:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-30-requirements/
> 
> I do not see anything related to this functionality there.
> 
> Why do we spend time approving requirement documents when later on we are
> allowed to 
> bypass them any time we feel like  !?

You know quite well why the working group might want to add functionality that
isn't in the requirements document - it's not like it's the first time we've
ever done that. And you know as well as I do the inherent pitfalls of a
waterfall development process - the working group is responding to changes in
external requirements for the language.

> > > - the are 100% implementation dependent (no standard semantics of any kind)
> > 
> > Also untrue. There are systems (like the cloud) where they make less sense than
> > others, but that is not a reason to suggest that the many other XQuery
> > implementations where they do make sense should lose this facility.
> 
> Excuse me, by the text we will come up with (if we accept those) will be
> required to say: the semantics
> of such functions is implementation dependent.
> 
> Otherwise, I will oppose it very strongly. Such functions make no sense in many
> environments-- cloud is only one of them, but what about data integration,
> distributed queries, etc !?
> 
> Please do not forget that data integration for example is still one of the
> major use cases for XQuery.
> 
> How should a query processor return for such functions when the query is split
> into smaller queries executed in a variety of other systems !?
> 
> It makes perfect NO sense.

You're not saying anything new here. I accept that there are situations where
the only sensible response to asking for an environment variable is to say it
doesn't exist. This is not a reason to remove this functionality.

> > > - they make no technical sense on environments that use virtualized
> > > infrastructure (aka cloud)
> > 
> > See above.
> > 
> > > - if implemented, they create a security breach
> > 
> > Can you please explain this further? It's not obvious what you're referring to
> > here.
> 
> John, I am a little but surprised by that comment. 
> 
> As soon as MarkLogic implements and ships those functions, please let me know,
> and 
> I'll try to come up with a nice demo for you.
> 
> It seems that demos are better then a thousand words.

This was a serious question, and I'd prefer no response to a glib dismissal.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2011 10:42:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:45 UTC