Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <email@example.com>,"Evan Lenz" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Semantics was Re: [xml-dev] XQuery types ...
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 13:10:22 -0700
- Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Thread-index: AcH0bUdmXV32f7HoRV29H2o2bEAtXAAAVzyg
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Semantics was Re: [xml-dev] XQuery types ...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 12:58 AM
> To: Evan Lenz; Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [xml-dev] Semantics was Re: [xml-dev] XQuery types ...
> On the otherhand, I do agree (I suppose with the XQuery WG)
> that: the XQuery semantics is a 'good thing', and I suppose
> that if the XQuery type system were actually based on XML
> Schema, as Dare suggests, then what would the purpose of the
> XQuery semantics be?
> As I've said, I see more in common between RELAXNG and XQuery
> semantics than XML Schema, but perhaps I'm the only person to
> think this, so be it.
The XQuery type system is based on W3C XML Schema. To claim otherwise
implies you haven't read the document. Besides the fact that it says so
explicitly, in section 3 entitled 'The XQuery Type System' where it
"The XQuery type system is based on XML Schema. XML Schema defines a
notion of validation for XML documents."
But even without that statement one stumbles over XML Schema all through
the formal semantics document especially in sections 2.3.*, 3.1.1, and
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
No matter how long or how hard you shop for an item,
after you've bought it, it will be on sale somewhere cheaper.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
You assume all risk for your use. (c) 2002 Microsoft Corporation. All