Re: Working draft of XQuery

Good! This is what I was hoping for :-)
I also hope that there will be only one type system for xquery and the
algebra.

	--michael  


> In the grand scheme of things, we need to be able to name all XML Schema 
> types, including not only primitive data types, but also document node 
> types (element, attribute, node), local element names, complex types, etc. 
> We also need to be able to specify whether type references should include 
> derived types.
> 
> We aren't there yet. That's what issue 5 is about. We are working together 
> with the Schema Working Group to find a way to unambiguously refer to any 
> of the things that I mentioned in the first paragraph.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> At 08:57 PM 2/16/2001 -0500, Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
> >I have a question about types in the just published XQuery spec.
> >
> >A type can be an XML Schema type or ELEMENT. The latter is a
> >keyword rather than a data type and seems disconnected from the schema
> >types. Also, compared to the ealier draft, the type specification keyword
> >ATTRIBUTE is missing. It is unclear how any of these relate to the XML
> >schema types.
> >
> >For instance, can I relate ELEMENT to a data type in XML schema using
> >instanceof?  Can one specify that a function can take any node in the
> >document tree as an argument?
> >
> >Is this disconnect a stop-gap measure until things get ironed out with the
> >XML schema people or there is some grand design behind it, which I am
> >missing in the spec?
> >
> >
> >
> >         --michael
>

Received on Friday, 16 February 2001 23:26:24 UTC