- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 10:54:59 -0700
- To: www-xml-query-comments@w3.org, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@softwareag.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 12:03 PM > To: Elliotte Rusty Harold; ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; David Carlisle > Cc: www-xml-query-comments@w3.org; xml-dev@lists.xml.org > Subject: Re: [xml-dev] The use of XML syntax in XML Query > > > >I think XQueryX > >could be redone in a more user-friendly form if that were desired. > > But doing this would require major new work, and would set back the > schedule for XQuery 1.0 significantly. Especially since the resulting > syntax would be syntactically similar to XSLT, but would have to be > different because of the optimizability and type-safety goals > of XQuery. The schedule and the sorting out of the relationship between XQuery and XSLT are essentially organizational objectives that are more or less irrelevant to the larger community of XML users. I [personally] would urge the XSLT/XQuery groups to: - Make sure that XPath 2.0 is as "clean" as possible, with features mainly used by XQuery or XSLT kept in the appropriate layers. This may be stating the obvious. - Make the release of XPath 2.0 the highest priority; there is an immediate need for the additional features that it offers over XPath 1.0 in the XML database world. - Consider an XUpdate or whatever on top of XPath 2.0 as a the next highest priority, split it out from XQuery if that helps get it out faster. Alternatively, graciously cooperate with some non-W3C activity to define an XUpdate language cleanly layered on XPath 2.0 if the W3C does not have the bandwidth to pursue it. - Let the others "cook" for as long as it takes to get them right. XPath 2.0 and XSLT 1.0 can "hold down the fort" for a year or two, so don't use the argument that "such and such a proposal will delay XQuery!" as a reason not to explore the numerous suggestions that you are getting from the user community. For example, this thread on XML-DEV has pointed to some potential problems in the "half XML, half non-XML" syntax of the element/attribute constructors that need to be carefully considered and alternatives weighed.
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2002 12:55:47 UTC