RE: Suggest XQuery/XSLT/XPath Part 0 document(s)

Thanks for the suggestion. I agree that tutorial material is often useful,
though in my view a normative spec should be written to be readable on its
own by anyone with a computer science education, and for those without such
an education, the job is best done by commercial publishers or interested
individuals.

In the end it comes down to finding someone who has the time, inclination,
and skill to do the writing.

Michael Kay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com [mailto:AndrewWatt2001@aol.com] 
> Sent: 11 May 2002 14:43
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Suggest XQuery/XSLT/XPath Part 0 document(s)
> 
> 
> I would like to suggest that the WG provide, in due course, 
> an XQuery Part 0, 
> by which I mean an introductory document analogous to W3C XML 
> Schema Part 0. 
> This should, in my view, be published as a REC in the way 
> that Part 0 of W3C 
> XML Schema was.
> 
> Already concerns are being expressed about the difficulty in 
> accessing the 
> meaning of XQuery 1.0. Since those comments are coming from 
> those more 
> towards the cutting edge of XML the need for succinct introductory 
> information can only be anticipated to increase, as others 
> with more general 
> interests come to grapple with XQuery.
> 
> The Use Cases document might be usefully adapted to provide 
> useful tutorial 
> level information.
> 
> Depending on the route the WGs take to clarify/resolve a 
> number of concerns 
> raised about XPath 2.0 and XSLT 2.0 in relation to XQuery 
> there may also be a 
> need for one or two additional "Part 0" type documents for 
> XPath and XSLT 
> users.
> 
> For many current users of XSLT 1.0 and XPath 1.0 the learning 
> burden brought 
> by XQuery is substantial. It would be sad to see XSLT 2.0 and 
> XPath 2.0 
> languish in the way that XHTML 1.0 has. 
> 
> Andrew Watt
>

Received on Sunday, 12 May 2002 04:59:25 UTC