RE: XQuery and GET

First: My response is not the official responds (at least not yet :-))
of the WG.

Second: There are many obligations w.r.t. interactions with different
protocols and APIs. We find that if we open up to one, we will bias the
language toward that area and this is not in the interest of the
language design. Also, I feel that people working in the area of these
protocols, APIs and architectures are normally better suited to provide
the syntax and semantics for their interaction. And I think the WG will
be happy to help them (although preferably after we have shipped the
recommendation to not further delay it).

Again, not speaking for the WG...
Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:59 AM
> To: Michael Rys
> Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XQuery and GET
> 
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 11:43:08AM -0700, Michael Rys wrote:
> > Thanks for your comment.
> >
> > Note that the XQuery WG only specifies the general language
semantics
> > and syntax and does not specify its binding to different access
methods.
> > Therefore, we consider the interaction with the HTTP protocol (or
SOAP
> > or JDBC or ADO.net) outside of our scope.
> 
> Thanks Michael.  I understand that position, as at first blush it
seems
> perfectly reasonable.  But I believe that query languages have a
special
> obligation under the constraints of Web architecture (especially those
> developed within the W3C), as I attempted to explain with the
reference
> to the TAG document.
> 
> Is your response the official response of the WG?
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Mark.

Received on Thursday, 16 October 2003 15:24:37 UTC