- From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@webweaving.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- cc: Alberto Reggiori <alberto@asemantics.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> > I.e. {escape 'escape-character'} does not work for some inside a
> > literal.
>
> So - there is an escape mechanism. (Aside: it was stated a while back there
> wasn't).
SOME have (proprietary) interfaces - no general solution a.f.a.i.k. Just
like they have stored procedures, date parsing trics and what not. All
have special '?' semanitcs.
> We can't proceed with this arbitrary way of deciding what's in and what's
> out. The same argument could be made for $. That is a client-side
> substituion marker (Perl and bash).
True - however the special characters used inside the programming
languages in which the query is written are not nearly as much of a
problem; as these languages by nessesety have adequate means to escape
them. The trouble is when INSIDE those languages you have another language
which has different needs -and- when there is an existing infrastructure,
*DBC for the myrad of flavours of SQL, which has assigned very definitife
semantics to the ? as something which is not part of the SQL query but
as something trapped/procesed prior to passing it on.
If the dropping of the ? altogether; or a swap to a _ or $ -only- makes
the problem go away with that major query language SQL without solving the
bash problem (where the ? is also special) then I am happy; as our SWQL
has more beef with SQL; and both SQL and SWQL have their beefs with the
programming language from which they are called.
Lets not ignore SQL. It is out there. It is not going to go away.
Neither is ODBC/JDBC no matter how broken and backward these are. That
tandem is going to be near anywhere we deploy SWQL. And we're the small
guy and the newcomer.
Dw
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2004 14:24:39 UTC