[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 05:23 PM 1/3/2002 -0500, Champion, Mike wrote:
>So, it appears that this really is a barrel of snakes, not easily
>susceptible to a "divide and conquer" approach. I can sympathize with the
>perception that declaring victory on XPath 2.0 makes their problems all the
>harder. There's no way obvious way to add updates to XQuery 1.0 or seriously
>re-think the relationship between XSLT and XQuery without either a) pushing
>back the schedule significantly or b)giving up all hope of the strongly
>typed queries coming together without yet another start from scratch.
>
>So, [my personal analysis, flame away if you disagree] there isn't going to
>be an XQuery Recommendation that has joins, a strong type system for queries
>and results, and updates anytime soon.
At XML 2001, four members of the Query WG were asked when they thought we
should try to go to CR with XQuery 1.0, and all four basically answered
this summer. That does not include updates, but it does include joins and
strong typing.
What I think we should do for updates, and what I *am* doing, is to prepare
a proposal and let the XML Query WG respond to it. I am doing this together
with other vendors who plan to implement updates.
>- realistic assessments of the tradeoffs between an XQuery Recommendation
>without updates sooner and one with updates later
I am all ears on this. Personally, I would think it would be particularly
interesting to hear feelings about:
1. An XQuery 1.0 CR this summer, with a separate CR for updates six months
later,
or
2. An XQuery 1.0 CR a year from now including updates.
This is really the crucial question. Personally, I do not think that
waiting a year or two for updates would be a good option.
>- plausible alternatives ways to produce short-term interoperability
>guidelines for XML database vendors and applications developers while all
>this is cooking in the W3C Labs. Is there some quick 'n dirty hack of XPath
>1.0 + a join syntax + an update syntax that could tide us over for a year or
>two, or would that create more long-term problems than short-term solutions?
I personally think this would create more long-term problems.
Jonathan
|
