Lists Home |
Date Index |
Mike Champion wrote:
> Someone from XQuery will have to answer, and perhaps to correct my
> understanding that it is the schema/typing issue that creates the biggest
> constraint on the schedule.
I personally agree with this assessment.
> All I can say is that the XQuery
> people seem to
> believe that type system issues are central to their critique of
> XPath 1.0,
> their work to date, and as a differentiator between XSLT and XQuery.
It may be a differentiator in terms of how the fallback mechanism is
ultimately employed, but it doesn't imply any independence between the two.
The double-edged sword of unifying XPath with an XQuery type system,
regardless of whether the net effect is that XPath (in the context of XSLT
2.0) behaves in a more loosely, dynamically typed way, is that XPath 2.0
will take just as long as XQuery to get out the door. If you take a closer
look at the XPath 2.0 document, you'll see that, on the current path, XPath
2.0 is fully dependent on all the same typing issues as XQuery. It's not as
if XPath 2.0 as currently specified can be declared a minimal victory; it's
completely dependent on the as-of-yet unspecified XQuery type system.
> As for the idea of coming back and layering the typing in XQuery 2.0,
> my understanding is that solving "strong typing" requires that XPath
> 2.0 and XQuery be designed as a unit, even if they are layered once
> everything is done.