[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Note that XQuery is planning on adding update syntax and semantics (for
an example see the syntax in the Microsoft prototype and Jonathan
Robie's XML 2001 talk) and several people in the working group are
working on it. It probably won't be part of 1.0 though for not delaying
1.0 even further.
Best regards
Michael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:kpako@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 21:56 PM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org; Joe English
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
>
> Doesn't anyone else see something wrong with THREE different languages
> with
> significantly differing syntax that have roughly the same
functionality
> (querying) with yet NONE have update or delete semantic? However some
> people
> think that the time has come for XML databases? Interesting..
>
> PS: IMHO, until someone comes up with a language with simple
> SELECT-DELETE-UPDATE semantics, XML databases will be the OODBMSs of
the
> new
> millenium. I remember being introduced to XML and thinking that the
> concepts
> behind relational databases were more complex than those behind the
> hierarchical structures that encompass XML, amazingly enough the W3C
has
> proved me wrong by producing increasingly complex languages that
> supposedly
> deal with handling XML in databases yet have much less functionality
than
> a
> simple language like SQL. *sigh*
>
> --
> THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #202
> All crones with the ability to prophesy will be given free facelifts,
> permanents, manicures, and Donna Karan wardrobes. That should pretty
> well destroy their credibility.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe English" <jenglish@flightlab.com>
> To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 6:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
>
>
> >
> > Michael Kay wrote:
> >
> > > To sum it up rather briefly, I think XQuery 1.0 is essentially
XPath
> 2.0
> > > plus
> > > 1) element and attribute constructors
> > > 2) function definitions
> > > 3) strong typing
> > > Of course (1) is available in a different form in XSLT 1.0, and
(2) is
> > > available in XSLT 2.0, so you could say that apart from syntax,
XQuery
> is
> > > XSLT plus strong typing minus template rules. Those might seem
small
> > > differences, but I happen to agree with those who believe that the
> addition
> > > of strong typing and the absence of template rules are both very
> important
> > > when it comes to optimizing a query to execute against a large XML
> database
> > > with pre-defined indexes.
> >
> > That makes sense. XSLT is very difficult to optimize, so
> > XQuery has an advantage by virtue of what it leaves *out*.
> >
> >
> > --Joe English
> >
> > jenglish@flightlab.com
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> >
> > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
> Do You Yahoo!?
>
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
