[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@softwareag.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 11:57 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo; Jeff Greif; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] W3C's five new XQuery/Xpath2 working drafts -
> Still missing Updates
> >Are there really that many
> >businesses that stand to lose that much money if they have
> to use XPath for a few more months instead of jumping to
> XSLT-with-different-syntax aka XQuery?
>
> XSLT is not strongly typed, is not set up for function
> libraries, and has been rather difficult to optimize for large
repositories.
I for one would like to see someone elaborate on these points, and relate
them back to the original question more clearly: How is XPath's lack of
strong typing or functions going to cost anybody money in the next couple of
years? Is the difficulty of syntax-level XPath optimization (transforming a
query expression into an equivalent expression that can be executed more
efficiently) a significant cost factor for real businesses?
I accept the desireability of XQuery being a language that can query an XML
view of relations, objects, and XML documents/data in a consistent manner.
In the long run, a unified notion of "types" has to be developed that
transcends all three. What I don't see is a compelling BUSINESS case for
prioritizing this above a simple update syntax along the lines of the simple
SQL examples that people always cite as what they want to do with XQuery.
What am I missing here?
|
