Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 10:44 AM 1/8/2002 -0800, Evan D. Lenz wrote:
>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.
I think that over the last year, the biggest issue has been integration
with XPath. At this point, the typing issues are front and center,
particularly issues involving substitutability and named typing. I think we
are pretty much on track with these issues, though.
> > 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.
I agree with Evan here. The two languages are joined at the hip, and both
use the type system of 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 yet unspecified? As a member of the XSL WG, surely you have read the
specification for the type system:
You are also familiar with the issues, especially structural vs. named
typing. Are you saying that the type system is not specified until we close
all the issues? Or perhaps you are referring to the fact that we delayed
publication of the Formal Semantics so that it could track developments in
the XQuery language?
> > 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.