Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc.

Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> I think Tim Bray is arguing here against XQ engines actually needing to be
> xml schema engines -- as opposed to the XQ spec being written using xml
> schema.
> Unless I have misunderstood.

I'm saying three different things about XQuery, two of which may have 
architectural import:

1. XQuery is far too large and complex for a V1.0 spec, with a severe 
cost to interoperability.
2. XQuery extends way too far into the domain of abstract-type-based 
querying and run-time schema wrangling.
3. If XQuery is going to require schema machinery, it should not 
hard-wire itself to W3C XML Schemas to the exclusion of all 
alternatives. [With the exception of using Schema's basic atomic data 
types, which lots of specs including competing schema languages now do.]

In #1 and #3, you could s/XQuery/current W3C specifications/ and be left 
with a valid statement of concern, which suggests that they are issues 
of W3C-global import and potential TAG (or AB, or AC) fodder.  #2 seems 
like the kind of issue that should get worked out in the normal W3C 
process. -Tim