[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XQuery: is FLWR a <xsl:foreach/> ?
- From: Charles Reitzel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jonathan Robie <Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 12:28:10 -0500 (EST)
Understood. I didn't mean all of XSLT. Just the subset that appears to
overlap w/ XQuery. It appears that most, if not all, of XQuery may be
expressed as XSLT. Thus, I think the XQuery WG needs to deal w/ the issue.
Also, I don't see the big rush to market. I've been a broken record: "get
the XML Schema Data Types out the door." Is it soup yet? I'd like to see
schema handling fully integrated into XML tools. And validation is the
least of it.
There has been some agreement that schemas will expand the possibilities for
static analysis and document indexing schemes (e.g. full ancestor path, key
definitions). Some improvements could be realized w/ XSLT and XPath 1.0.
IMHO, it's better for all parties if developers let the final Schema spec
sink in. I.e. we'll need an API for data type lookup - a SAX extension?.
Should the Infoset define a standard object model for schemas - or is the
DOM ok? XPath + Data Types needs working out. We'll need to work out ways
to extend schemas to keep additional data useful to applications (i.e. each
element type, what widget to edit the data, what is a glossary help link,
what is how-to help link?).
take it easy,
At 10:20 AM 3/1/01 -0500, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>At 01:00 AM 2/26/2001 -0500, Charles Reitzel wrote:
>>These are tasks the XML Query WG can and should perform,
>>perhaps in conjunction with the XSLT WG. I expect the
>>equivalences will be of a similar nature, typically XPath
>I am not at all sure that the Query WG can optimize all of
>XSLT, and I'm quite confident that we can't do so and still
>get the language to market in a reasonable time frame.