W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > April to June 2000

RE: XSL Pattern Queries (values & filters) with DOM

From: Aaron Skonnard <aarons@develop.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:33:07 -0600
To: "www-Dom" <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBJHEMDDKHIDLCDFAOOENKCIAA.aarons@develop.com>
>
> > Yes, I agree that term XQL has become overloaded because of its history.
I
> > was using it to refer to the work of the XML Query Language WG and not
the
> > original notes. I wasn't aware that they weren't planning to use XQL to
> > refer to their work. Any idea why?
>
> Clarity. Referring to two different things with the same name causes a
> _lot_ of confusion.
>

Agreed, but until something becomes a W3C recommendation, I don't think it
has a legitimate claim on a name/acronymn (at least in the W3C space). Just
because one of the original notes that led to XPath was called XQL, doesn't
mean that the XML Query Language WG shouldn't be able to call the product of
their work XQL, especially when it makes so much sense - but I *do* agree
with your statement about it generating confusion.

Actually, in this particular case I don't think I've seen any official
implementation documentation that refers to the technology as XQL (e.g., in
MSXML it's referred to as XSL patterns, etc.).

> Dip into the XSLT discussions and you'll see a great deal of frustration
> about the ongoing need to explain that a certain prototype XSL
> implementation is not XSLT-compatable and should not be confused with the
> published recommendation.
>

Yes, I can appreciate this...the same is true for all the different XML
Schema initiatives that have developed over time. It's a matter of knowing
*exactly* what your processor implements and being very anal about how names
are used.

-aaron
Received on Monday, 17 April 2000 21:35:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:47 GMT