[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>
> Amusingly enough, my day job requires me to be familiar with both
aforementioned documents. So what exactly was your point again?
I think XQuery semantics is terrific, albeit a bit technical. I consider it
to define a perfectly reasonable and adequate for the intended purpuse, type
system, which as is happens is very similar to the RELAXNG regular
expression syntax, i.e. XQuery types are RELAXNG regular expressions, and
both use XML Schema for simple (non-XML) datatypes.
Typing and validation are closely related. Consider a type as an (usually
unbounded) set whose members are those pieces of XML that are 'valid' with
respect to the type specification.
That's exactly my point.
Jonathan
>
> Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>
> > Secondly, XQuery doesn't really have a type system
> > because it uses W3C XML Schema which is a validation
> > system.
>
> Gasp. As punishment for saying such things you should be forced to read
> http://www.w3.org/TR/query-semantics/
>
> Jonathan
>
|
