[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Hi Jonathan
>
> This is interesting, but also what worries me (and has worried me all the time.)
>
> If the spec doesnt take care of Update, vendors will implement their own syntax & semantics, and there will be no standard.
>
> Then XQuery will _not_ become the SQL of XML.
I know it's a near hopeless case, politically, but I have no idea why there is not more consideration of XUpdate in these discussions.
It is marvelously simple and straightforward to use and implement. (Of course, this didn't help TransQuery.)
It does have the added advantage that it's widely implemented.
I think it's far more elegant than all the other update proposals I've seen (some of which truly set my teeth on edge).
http://www.xmldatabases.org/projects/XUpdate-UseCases/
http://www.xmldb.org/xupdate/
One problem, for sure, is that the spec needs polish.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com http://fourthought.com
http://4Suite.org http://uche.ogbuji.net
Track chair, XML/Web Services One (San Jose, Boston): http://www.xmlconference.com/
RDF Query using Versa - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think10/index.html
WSDL and the Wild, Wild West - http://adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6004
XML, The Model Driven Architecture, and RDF @ XML Europe - http://www.xmleurope.com/2002/kttrack.asp#themodel
|
