- From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@softwareag.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 10:33:05 -0500
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
- Cc: www-xml-query-comments@w3.org, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
At 01:51 PM 1/3/2002 +0000, David Carlisle wrote: >If Xquery is designed to be used in that way, why does it use >syntax like <aaa> .. </aaa>, or é that is designed to look like XML >but which if used quoted in an XML document doesn't look so much like >XML at all? If the XML Query processor was expecting an XML document >rather than a string to be extracted out of your XML document example >the XML syntax that appears in the XML query would be encoded in the XML >document as XML constructs not just some big cdata section or a mass of ><. Even XML syntax, when used quoted in an XML document, "doesn't look so much like XML at all". I think it is reasonable to design XQuery with the expectation that most people will have keyboard drivers and displays that can handle their native languages, and that queries can either be written in Unicode or converted to Unicode. Of course, there is always the biblical researcher in Taiwan who is working with Greek and Hebrew texts and German and English commentaries (I am thinking of a specific person who I talked to at a conference). This kind of person is simply going to install a lot of keyboard drivers and fonts or play games with character references. I don't think this person represents the 80/20 - we have to provide a solution that covers this case, but this is not the solution we need to optimize. A more serious objection David might raise is that in the current definition, there is no XML format that all XQuery processors are required to recognize as a query. That would be simple to specify. Is it worth doing? Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2002 10:33:36 UTC