W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ql@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: Evaluation function

From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:25:44 -0400
Message-ID: <41012DF8.9010309@datadirect.com>
To: Stephane Mbaye <stephane.mbaye@gael.fr>
Cc: XQuery <www-ql@w3.org>

Yes, for all practical purposes I suspect the debate is closed for 
XQuery 1.0, unles new information is presented. You can try sending a 
comment to our public comments list (public-qt-comments@w3.org), but I 
doubt that you'll get much traction with this.

XQuery is already a fairly large language for a 1.0 standard, and we 
have no requirement for eval() in our requirements or use case for 
eval() in our use cases. Changing the requirements at this stage is not 
a great idea, we should be closing things down to ship instead.

And every 1.0 standard should leave users with something they can want 
in the 2.0 version...

Jonathan

Stephane Mbaye wrote:

> Thank you for your answers.
> 
> It sounds that an evaluating expression is an interesting issue for many
> users and purposes. I understand, however, how complex it could be to
> specify this function, and in particular with regard to the conversion of
> the dynamic context to the static evaluation context (e.g. should the
> (sub-)expression declare, as "external", the variables to inherit from the
> outer context? Should the current date time be reinitialized? etc.).
> 
> Nevertheless, I am convinced it is not an impossible process and, should an
> evaluate() function be specified, it could have very constraining
> specifications. As an example, it may be totally independent from the
> static/dynamic context of the calling query. It may also have
> implementation-defined or implementation- dependent features such as many
> other components of the XQuery language.
> 
> My concern is at least to have a standardized/common specification/baseline,
> to avoid or minimize the number of different implementations of the same
> thing.
> 
> Is the debate completely closed?
Received on Friday, 23 July 2004 11:26:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:16 UTC