- From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 00:17:09 -0800
- To: "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EB0A327048144442AFB15FCE18DC96C701642DB7@RED-MSG-31.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I personally do not think that there are enough use cases and experience yet to justify an interoperability requirement of implicit input collections. I think that the explicit syntax for now suffices and this functionality can be revisited in a future version. Another reason for my preference for making this a vNext feature is that such functionality is an addition to the existing spec and requires a fair amount of additional work, including specifying the static semantics (which is not that simple as we currently see with the semantics of /a). I rather close the spec and only add something if it meets a very high bar at this time... Best regards Michael (speaking for himself) _____ From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kay, Michael Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 3:57 AM To: public-qt-comments@w3.org Subject: [XQuery] SAG-XQ-002 Input collection SAG-XQ-002 Input collection We regret that there is no simple intuitive way of writing a query whose input is some implicit (context-defined) collection of documents. The input() function went some way to meeting this need, but this has disappeared. The context item is restricted to a single node or value, which sends the wrong message about the purpose of XQuery, which is that it is designed primarily to process large collections of documents, unlike XPath, which is designed primarily to locate nodes within a single document. Other mechanisms for supplying a collection as input to the query (using parameter variables, and using the collection() function) are syntactically cumbersome. We think that for XQuery (as distinct from XPath and XSLT) the concept of an implicit input collection is a useful one, and that there should be a convenient syntax to refer to it. (How about "~", or perhaps "$$"?) Michael Kay for Software AG
Received on Friday, 28 November 2003 03:17:11 UTC