Lists Home |
Date Index |
One issue not addressed is what progress has the XQuery WG already made on
update syntax. If they have already done substantial preliminary work, but
have some perceived need to produce an interim XQuery spec before that's
ready for release, it may be a duplication/fragmentation of effort to
produce a competing spec in an Oasis TC, and take just as long. Perhaps the
WG could provide some more public information about their plans for update
language, both in terms of content and scheduling. Perhaps they could open
up the process enough to provide a snapshot of their current straw man and
some indication of when they hope to release a solidified spec. This will
help to determine whether an OASIS TC would be useful. It would also allow
implementors willing to tilt at a moving target a chance to get out in front
of the spec, thus providing useful feedback for the WG.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 10:53 AM
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] W3C's five new XQuery/Xpath2 working drafts - Still
> The dilemma for the W3C is exactly as Soumitra Sengupta posed it: an
> without updates relatively soon, or an XQuery with updates significantly
> later. Note that XPath is factored out of XSLT and XQuery; maybe an
> language based on XPath 2.0 can be developed independently? As Michael Kay
> noted, XQuery = XPath 2.0 + "1) element and attribute constructors 2)
> function definitions 3) strong typing". The latter two would be useful
> an update language, but not critical IMHO (and they appear to need some
> time to cook in the W3C Labs, not to mention lots of real-world testing,
> before they are ready to be standardized).
> Anyway, there are a number of options here:
> - Let the W3C proceed at their own pace, with typing/functions prioritized
> ahead of updates. Silence means assent to this scenario.
> - Start an OASIS TC to develop an XUpdate-like language based on XPath
> (2.0?) in parallel with XQuery. This will probably not be well-received
> many people at W3C, but perhaps we can agree that diversity is not the
> as divisiveness. It may be that XPath 2.0 is that "glue" that unites the
> transformation language, query language, and update language(s), and that
> a good basis on which to push forward in parallel.
> - Lobby the W3C to readjust the XQuery working group's priorities. This is
> probably futile, but it did work for the patent issue ... and if the W3C
> sees the alternatives as "forking the web" it might prefer realign its
> priorities rather than cede more of the XML spec space to OASIS.