Lists Home |
Date Index |
1/8/2002 7:43:12 AM, Jonathan Robie <email@example.com> wrote:
>That's a time frame, but it still doesn't identify the "big issue" that
>Jonathan Borden is asking for.
Hmm, I thought Jonathan Borden was wondering why XQuery could possibly take
a year or two to complete, but maybe he was asking why it would be a problem to
wait that long for a completed standard with updates. The Big Issue that I see is
roughly what JJ Andersen said elsewhere in this thread:
"If XQuery goes ahead without Update, it will become a nice tool, but not
a real usefull standard. And we will see independent update semantics
emerge from Oracle, IBM, MS etc. and chaos will prevail."
What inspired me to post the "best is the enemy of the good" gibberish
yesterday was this article: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8353604.html
If the world is counting on the W3C to save the Web from the folks who want
to be evil overlords, then the W3C has to either get something out ASAP or
do a better job of managing expectations for how great it's going to be in the
fullness of time. A world with a universally supported, strongly typed XML
query/update language that produces provably schema-valid results is "best".
A world with a weaker standard but without chaos or evil overlordship is "good."
I wish I felt more confident that pursuing the "best" for a year or more does leave
us wide-open to either chaos or proprietary domination. That's my "big issue."