[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 13:36, Jonathan Robie wrote:
> At 10:09 AM 5/8/2002 -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> >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.
>
> Are you seriously saying that vendors should implement whatever they want,
> instead of implementing the spec, if they find something that is easier to
> implement? Perhaps the W3C should stop writing "Recommendations" and start
> writing "Hints". But I don't see how that leads to interoperability, and I
> think users want interoperability.
I think Dare was merely saying that the motivating factors for XQuery
implementors to focus on interop are different from and less powerful
than the motivating factors for W3C XML Schema interop.
The experiences I've had in moving information and queries between
relational databases suggest to me that he may in fact be right. All of
it was SQL, yes... but since developers typically write code against a
particular backend at some point in the process, they don't worry about
whether that code will work just as well against any other backend.
With schemas, there's a much greater chance that you'll be sharing
schemas which then need to work in a wide variety of very different
environments.
If I get to make XQuery calls over the Internet to diverse exposed data
sources, then I might see a larger argument for general interop.
Somehow that seems unlikely as a general case.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
