[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> At 10:47 AM 5/7/2002 -0600, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> >Jonathan Robie:
> > > So far, I really feel like we are discussing various people's philosophies
> > > of XML. The requirements for XQuery were based on use cases, not on
> > philosophy.
> >
> >OK. I'm a bit fed up at this badgering. Have you read the subject line,
> >lately?
> >
> >XQuery is of no interest, currently, to me, so I'm not going to go and
> >read the stack of specs just so that I can give you a counter-example to
> >their sanctity.
>
> Fine - use either XPath or XQuery examples.
>
> >I do more development in the XML space in a day than most people do in a
> >month. I think this is the case for many of the people in this
> >discussion, so tossing about barbs about philosophy as a way to bait
> >people back into your desired corral of argument is neither warranted nor
> >useful.
>
> If you do that much XML development, surely you can write examples of path
> expressions and data that would take me a month to concoct. That would make
> it a lot easier to discuss this at a concrete level.
>
> If I am badgering, I am only badgering you to say something concrete enough
> to be evaluated. If this bothers you, I can simply ignore your posts,
> nobody has to meet my requirements to post to this list. But I won't have
> anything useful to say in response to your posts unless you get a little
> more concrete.
It looks as if we've had 2 levels of misunderstanding here.
The minor one is that I did not understand that XPath 2.0 examples would be equivalent to XQuery examples, so I interpreted you repeated requests for *XQuery* examples as an obnoxious ploy. That's why I snapped at you, and I apologize for doing so, although you might have avoided this misunderstanding by talking concrete details of XPath 2.0 in the first place.
The second one is that you seem to think that you're facing objections to your meeting the needs of users according to use cases. Speaking for myself, this is quite untrue. I have no problem with supporting type systems for users, and I never have. My position all along, and I've repeated it endlessly, is that I do not like the *approach* of grabbing a clutch of types that a particular cadre finds useful, and then enshrining this into a series of XML specs at the static level.
I would rather provide dynamic, generic facilities for typing, and implementors will find ways to optimize, as ever.
Considering this POV, can you see that you may be asking the wrong questions?
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One (San Jose, Boston): http://www.xmlconference.com/
DAML Reference - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/05/01/damlref.html
RDF Query using Versa - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think10/index.html
XML, The Model Driven Architecture, and RDF @ XML Europe - http://www.xmleurope.com/2002/kttrack.asp#themodel
|
