[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Robie
> [mailto:jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 6:51 AM
> To: Uche Ogbuji
> Cc: Dare Obasanjo; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XQuery types was Re: [xml-dev] Yet
> another plea for XUpdate...
>
>
> 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.
Why do you think people aren't trying hard to conform? Do you really
believe people are actually intentionally creating half-assed software
instead of the more likely scenario that the spec is too complex,
contradictory and ambiguous to implement correctly?
At least with W3C XML Schema, there is rationale for wanting to be
interoperable. I personally fail to see any reason why XQuery
implementers should go out of their way to try to be interoperable if
doing so would require undue difficulty on their end.
--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off all together.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
You assume all risk for your use. (c) 2002 Microsoft Corporation. All
rights reserved.
|
