RE: Verboseness - XML Syntax for XQuery 1.0 (XQueryX)

[Jonathan Robie <Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com>]

At 09:59 AM 6/15/2001 +0100, Dylan Walsh wrote:

> > From: Vassilis Papadimos [SMTP:vpapad@cse.ogi.edu]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 7:26 PM
> > To:   Dylan Walsh
> > Cc:   xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> > Subject:      Re: Verboseness - XML Syntax for XQuery 1.0 (XQueryX)
> >
> >I don't think the XQueryX syntax was intended to be particularly
> >human-writable, or even human-readable.
>
>True, but I think it should be, or that they should have a human
>writeable XML syntax available as well.

How important is this, and why is it important? Why would humans prefer to 
write queries in an XML syntax?

>However, I'm not saying that they should use XSLT, just that:
>1. for the results part of the query, they should adopt the XSLT
>template body format or something similar.

I think that our element constructors are quite similar to XSLT's template 
bodies, and more so in the latest Working Draft of XQuery.

>2. wherever XSLT and XQuery overlap in in their use of e.g. XPath, they
>should try to be consistent.

Absolutely - you may have noticed the following statement in the 
introduction to XQuery:

"XQuery relies on path expressions for navigating in hierarchic documents. 
XQuery expects these path expressions to conform to the semantics of XPath 
2.0, as defined by a joint XSLT/Query task force. The exact split between 
what is in XPath 2.0 and what is only in XQuery remains to be determined. 
Issues involving syntax that is shared between XQuery and XPath 2.0 must be 
resolved jointly by the Query and XSL Working Groups."

So I don't disagree with you on either of these points, but I think we are 
already doing the right thing.

>There is an excellent presentation on XQuery and XSLT here:
>http://xmlportfolio.com/xsltuk/slides/

I have already responded to an article by Lenz that takes a similar 
perspective in the following message:

http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200102/msg00511.html

In this message I argue that ease of use, offering conventional database 
functionality, optimizability, and strong typing are important reasons for 
developing XQuery, and these needs are not adequately satisfied by XSLT 1.0.

>My impression from that is that XQuery contains many changes from
>equivalent functionality in XSLT, some which are improvements, but end
>result is two somewhat similar languages with many superflous
>differences.

There was a useful discussion on this when XQuery was first released. One 
good summary of this discussion can be found here:

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/02/28/deviant.html

Jonathan

These are my opinions right now. They may be quite different from the 
opinions of Software AG, the W3C XML Query Working Group, or the opinions 
that I will have after reading and considering your response.