Re: Updated SPARQL Query Results XML Format draft

On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 01:25:36PM +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >>The next complexity level would be to number the variable declarations in 
> >>the header indicating the order of the variables but that does not make 
> >>sense for function ordering.  So, just an indication in the <results> 
> >>element seems fine, if anything at all.
> >
> >
> >Why optional? order="false" seems pretty reasonable, and optional
> >things just make processing harder.
> Simplest would be to put in nothing - currently, ARQ preserves ordering 
> when reading regardless, preserves ordering when writing regardless and 
> does not indictae it in the XML produced.  It's streamed (well, nearly so - 
> I need to switch to StAX from SAX.  Or have a callback API (no!).  Details, 
> details) and that is important for XML result set usage IMHO.
> If it (order="") is mandatory, we also need a "don't know" value.
I dont understadn why you would ommit it, having something like that be
optional makes it pretty useless, if clients cant depend on it, why would
they support it?

- Steve

Received on Thursday, 14 July 2005 12:49:27 UTC