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] XQuery types was Re: [xml-dev] Yet another plea for XUpda

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

At 06:18 PM 5/7/2002 -0600, Uche Ogbuji wrote:

>The "Who can implement XML Schema" thread Dare was alluding to was about 
>incompatibility between implementations rather than number of implementations.

We can't measure that until the XQuery spec is finished. However, if 
anybody is aware of ambiguities that need to be resolved in our spec, 
*please* point them out on our comments list.

I participated in the thread to which you refer. I recall that one thing we 
came to understand was that many "implementations" of XML Schema don't 
really try hard to conform, and that interoperability among those 
implementations that do conform seems to be pretty high. I remember 
encouraging people to put pressure on vendors to actually implement the 
spec, and to name implementations that do a good job of conforming. If we 
have a similar thread on XQuery, I will probably make the same points.

I do think that XQuery should try to make our specs clear, unambiguous, and 
implementable. That's all that we can do. I think Schema should have done a 
better job of this. However, interoperability among implementations that 
don't try to conform to the spec isn't an interesting metric. If there are 
implementations that do conform, and these are interoperable, the spec has 
done what a spec can do.



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

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