OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] W3C's five new XQuery/Xpath2 working drafts - Still missi

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • To: "Jeff Greif" <jgreif@alumni.princeton.edu>, <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
  • Subject: Re: [xml-dev] W3C's five new XQuery/Xpath2 working drafts - Still missing Updates
  • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@softwareag.com>
  • Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 14:39:53 -0500
  • In-reply-to: <00d001c18caf$09ae2e20$6400a8c0@softwareag.com>
  • References: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4021BD632@softwareag.com>

At 11:13 AM 12/24/2001 -0800, Jeff Greif wrote:
>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.

In fact, this is just the case. Several members of the XML Query WG 
developed a proposal, and several vendors are implementing variations of 
this proposal. This proposal was the basis of a presentation that I gave at 
XML 2001 in Orlando this Fall.

Whatever we release in XQuery 1.0, it has to be as solid as possible. That 
means leaving out features that we don't think we have given adequate 
review or for which there are not enough implementations. If you look 
carefully at the entire set of XQuery 1.0 specifications, you will see that 
there is a *lot* of technical content, and we have to make sure that it is 
well-specified and consistent across the specifications. Coordination 
between XQuery and XPath also takes time.

For me personally, updates are an extremely high priority. I am concerned 
about the likelihood that several similar implementations may hit the 
market before there is a standard for updates. But I am also very concerned 
that XQuery 1.0 be released relatively soon.

So would you still want to see updates in XQuery 1.0 if it meant releasing 
XQuery six months later?

Incidentally, given the need for a well-specified proposal that is solidly 
integrated with XQuery, and given the fact that the existing proposal came 
from members of the XML Query Working Group, I doubt that doing this work 
outside the W3C would really save time. I also doubt that disallowing 
XQuery features like element constructors would save much time, and I think 
that it is important to be able to construct new instances in updates so 
that they can be inserted or used to replace existing content.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS