- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:42:27 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11682 --- Comment #15 from John Snelson <john.snelson@marklogic.com> 2011-01-18 10:42:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > I think those functions should be eliminated from the standard for the > > > following reasons: > > > - they are not part of any user requirements > > > > Clearly not the case. > > Dear John, > > the W3C has a very specific was to describe requirements. It is called the > Requirement document. > > Here is the link to it: > http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-30-requirements/ > > I do not see anything related to this functionality there. > > Why do we spend time approving requirement documents when later on we are > allowed to > bypass them any time we feel like !? You know quite well why the working group might want to add functionality that isn't in the requirements document - it's not like it's the first time we've ever done that. And you know as well as I do the inherent pitfalls of a waterfall development process - the working group is responding to changes in external requirements for the language. > > > - the are 100% implementation dependent (no standard semantics of any kind) > > > > Also untrue. There are systems (like the cloud) where they make less sense than > > others, but that is not a reason to suggest that the many other XQuery > > implementations where they do make sense should lose this facility. > > Excuse me, by the text we will come up with (if we accept those) will be > required to say: the semantics > of such functions is implementation dependent. > > Otherwise, I will oppose it very strongly. Such functions make no sense in many > environments-- cloud is only one of them, but what about data integration, > distributed queries, etc !? > > Please do not forget that data integration for example is still one of the > major use cases for XQuery. > > How should a query processor return for such functions when the query is split > into smaller queries executed in a variety of other systems !? > > It makes perfect NO sense. You're not saying anything new here. I accept that there are situations where the only sensible response to asking for an environment variable is to say it doesn't exist. This is not a reason to remove this functionality. > > > - they make no technical sense on environments that use virtualized > > > infrastructure (aka cloud) > > > > See above. > > > > > - if implemented, they create a security breach > > > > Can you please explain this further? It's not obvious what you're referring to > > here. > > John, I am a little but surprised by that comment. > > As soon as MarkLogic implements and ships those functions, please let me know, > and > I'll try to come up with a nice demo for you. > > It seems that demos are better then a thousand words. This was a serious question, and I'd prefer no response to a glib dismissal. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2011 10:42:29 UTC