[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: XQuery & XSLT was RE: Verboseness - XML Syntax for XQuery 1.0(XQueryX)
- From: Michael Rys <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Dylan Walsh <Dylan.Walsh@Kadius.Com>, email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 08:27:42 -0700
Note, I am speaking solely for myself below and not the working group.
> There is nothing more confusing than having two similar but
> subtly different syntaxes to remember. XQuery serves a
> different purpose to XSLT and needs a different syntax to
> reflect these differences. However, where the two standards
> overlap they should be more consistent. In particular, I
> believe the XSLT template body format should be used for
> query results.
I don't think that the template body format is appropriate for the user
communities that are most likely to use XQuery.
> From: Michael Champion [SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 10:38 PM
> >Finally, on the question of whether XQuery should be more
> SQL-like than
> >XSLT-like, I think that question is moot: XSLT *is* a fairly
> >query language, and those who are happy with it will probably be able
> >get along without XQuery. The whole point of XQuery (as I
> see it) is to
> >provide those who need it with a more SQL-like XML query language.
> My understanding of the point of XQuery was that it provides
> querying across collections of XML documents, with new
> features for this task and better scope for optimization than
> XSLT. Making it more "SQL-like" seems pointless to me, as the
> language is different anyway, and the model is not
> relational. It uses different keywords and different syntax.
Note that the "SQL-like" form is not tied to relational models at all.
Michael could also have said Lore-like, OQL-like etc. I.e., a concise,
easy to read and write declarative language.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Robie [SMTP:Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 11:23 AM
> >>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
> >write queries in an XML syntax?
> The users editor can ensure well-formedness.
> The syntax for results is itself XML, making it more
> intuitive. The syntax for results can be similar to that of
> XSLT, meaning programmers only have to learn one syntax.
Most of my XQuery constituency is not really interested in learning XSLT
syntax but prefers the XQuery 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
> >bodies, and more so in the latest Working Draft of XQuery.
> They appear to not be well-formed XML in XQuery.
Is this really a problem? I find human readability and writeability to
be more important goals. Having XML-based constructor functions for
elements and attributes breaks readability and writeability more than
the current constructors.
> >In this message I argue that ease of use, offering conventional
> >functionality, optimizability, and strong typing are
> important reasons
> >developing XQuery, and these needs are not adequately
> satisfied by XSLT
> I am not opposed to XQuery, and I am aware that it provides
> functionality distinct from that of XSLT. I am not implying
> you should all use XSLT and forget about XQuery. My point is
> that there are atleast two areas where they overlap: 1. They
> select parts of an XML document, specified mostly using
> XPath. 2. They construct new XML elements by example.
> I believe they should try to be consistent in these areas. In
> some cases, for (1), this would mean changing XSLT to align
> with XQuery, as XQuery is better. In other areas XQuery is
> merely different. For area (2), I believe the XSLT format
> should be used. It has been stated more than once, that the
> workings groups are co-ordinating their efforts for
> consistency, but based on
> http://xmlportfolio.com/xsltuk/slides/ that > does not appear
> to be working perfectly.
Back to lurking...