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 ]
  • To: "Mike Champion" <mc@xegesis.org>,<xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
  • Subject: RE: [xml-dev] XSLT and XQuery
  • From: "Michael Rys" <mrys@microsoft.com>
  • Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 00:09:17 -0800
  • Thread-index: AcGYSrl1s9kQOHMcTxeG4JvaqylSPgAmaOQw
  • Thread-topic: [xml-dev] XSLT and XQuery

I would like to point out that already (almost) two years ago, when the
first draft of the XML Query WG's requirement document was published,
that update functionality would not be part of the first version of the

Some people in the WG (such as Jonathan and myself) find updates to be
very important but understand and support the reasons why the WG decided
to concentrate on retrieval for v1. 

I am a bit surprised that people then did not complain. If there would
have been such a support for updates after the first draft of the req
document, I am sure we could have swayed the WG. Now, I am sorry to say,
it is rather late.

Best regards

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 5:43 AM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XSLT and XQuery
> 1/8/2002 7:43:12 AM, Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@softwareag.com>
> >That's a time frame, but it still doesn't identify the "big issue"
> >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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> query/update language that produces provably schema-valid results is
> "best".
> A world with a weaker standard but without chaos or evil overlordship
> "good."
> I wish I felt more confident that pursuing the "best" for a year or
> does  leave
> us wide-open to either chaos or proprietary domination. That's my "big
> issue."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>


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

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