Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc.

Hi Dare,

> XPath 2.0 and XQuery use W3C XML Schema as a basis for a type system
> and not merely as a validation language. There is currently no XML
> schema language I have come across that can satisfy this need for
> both languages. Instead of dwelling in hypotheticals it would
> progress this discourse if you presented alternatives instead of
> simply stating your dislike for the current state of affairs.

I'm sorry if my opinion biased the tone of the issues/questions; I did
try to phrase them neutrally, because they're honestly things that I'd
like to get cleared up. After all, there's no point in working on
alternatives if the fundamental assumptions that I'm making about the
role of XPath 2.0 in relation to other specifications are wrong.

Perhaps it's right that W3C XML Schema 1.0 is the only schema language
that XPath 2.0 should be concerned about. Perhaps it's right that the
XPath 2.0 experience with W3C XML Schema Datatypes should lead to
changes in that Recommendation. Perhaps it's right that XQuery should
be something more than a host language for XPath 2.0. Perhaps it's
right that other languages should make up their own subsets if they
need less than XPath 2.0 gives them, and the design of XPath 2.0
shouldn't address their requirements specifically. Perhaps it's right
that XPath 2.0 should be only really be recommended for people with
schemas.

I don't think so, but that's just an opinion, and that's what the
TAG's here for, isn't it? To resolve issues like these, where
different groups have different opinions?

> "W3C XML Schema sucks and XPath shouldn't use it" is an opinion and
> not a Web architectural issue.

The above isn't an opinion that I subscribe to, by the way. W3C XML
Schema doesn't suck and XPath should support it. But personally I
don't think that XPath should *only* support W3C XML Schema.

Cheers,

Jeni

---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/

Received on Monday, 14 October 2002 06:54:39 UTC