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] XSLT and XQuery

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Mike Champion wrote:

> 1/7/2002 11:12:27 PM, "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > Perhaps I am dense, but at the
> >end of a long discussion, I am missing what the big issue is (aside from
> >glaring need for UPDATE in XQuery).
> My point is that doing all this "right" will take time (minimum one more
> and it's not clear that the world will wait patiently while it is being
done right.
> How do we write powerful but interoperable XML database applications in
> meantime?  I see the dilemma, but I don't pretend to have an answer.
I am unsure what you mean by "all this", and I suspect that people are
already writing XML database applications to the extent that it suits their
needs. What I am saying is that beyond unifying the underlying XPath 2 and
XQuery 1 data models, I am unsure what is mean by "unifying" XSLT and
XQuery. The term "unify" means: _make one_ but these are separate things,
separate languages designed to perform distinct tasks. I just don't see the
need for XQuery and XSLT to use the same syntax if this is what is meant by
unification. Certainly XQuery might learn some things from XSLT e.g. the
non-XML attribute constructor syntax, as XSLT/XPath learns the underlying
data model/formalism from XQuery.

What I am interested in hearing about, but what noone has yet been able to
explain, is whether:

1) there are more fundamental differences between XSLT and XQuery (beyond
surface syntax)
2) and if so, why I should care

I also suspect that in trying to get things perfect in a given year, that
instead, XQuery would get worse rather than better. In my heart I am an
experimentalist, e.g. "extreme programming" as it has been most recently
termed and so yes, I think XQuery is mature enough, perhaps with a just
smidgeon more work, to start going out there and being implemented -- this
is the _only_ way we will ever get to see whether it really does promote
"powerful yet interoperable XML database applications", and if it doesn't,
they back to the drawing board.

What could possibly require _a year_ more work? specifics please.



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

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