W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > April 2009

Re: XQuery 1.0

From: mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:00:28 +0200
Message-ID: <21d9ade60904062300s7512fed9y63f4ff4d802ce31e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Well

1) it is an optional step, so I won't die for that (people can do p:xquery11)
2) there is a lot of profile for XQuery (Update, Scripting extension, etc..)
3) we should be consistent with p:xsl-formatter (2.0 in the pipe),
p:validate-with-xml-schema (1.1 in the pipe), p:validate-with-relax-ng
(some amendments in the pipe), etc.

I don't think this problem is easy to solve

The only thing I see is to have on all step that rely on a
specifiction to have <p:option name="version"> with a consistent
story, so that we don't have to come back to it

Xmlizer

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> Our XQuery step claims to support explicitly XQuery 1.0. I propose
> that we relax that and give processors the freedom to support both 1.0
> and any future version of XQuery.
>
>                                        Be seeing you,
>                                          norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Man, whatever he may think, is a very
> http://nwalsh.com/            | limited being; the world is a narrow
>                              | circle drawn about him; the horizon
>                              | limits our immediate view; immortality
>                              | means a century or two.-- Hazlitt
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 06:01:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 7 April 2009 06:01:09 GMT