[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Robie
> [mailto:jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 10:36 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo; Uche Ogbuji
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] XQuery types was Re: [xml-dev] Yet
> another plea for XUpdate...
>
>
> 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 remember a few years ago when I first heard about the W3C and the way
people kept saying "They aren't a standards body, that's why they write
'recommendations' and not 'standards'". My, how times have changed.
Seriously though, you may pontificate all you want but the fact of the
matter is that vendors typically do not completely implement standards
interoperably in the software industry unless the standard is fairly
straightforward to implement and have an organization with teeth
enforcing conformance(e.g. Java). C++, C99, SQL, HTML, CSS, etc are all
examples of "standards" that have never really been fully implemented by
various vendors.
Considering that there are over 900 pages of documentation to read
before one fully grasps what is actually an XQuery implementation (with
more on the way), this doesn't count as straightforward to me.
XQuery Requirements 13
XQuery Use Cases 88
XQuery 1.0 (Syntax) 175
XPath 2.0 (Syntax) 149
Functions & Operators 193
Formal Semantics 222
Data Model 59
XQueryX (XML syntax for XQuery) 23
The main reason I bring this up is that I'd like the XQuery WG to think
seriously about things like conformance levels and trimming features if
they don't want XQuery to end up as yet another standard that vendors
pay lip service to.
I'm just being a realist. W3C XML Schema has a number of issues that
have made interoperability a problem, IMHO considering that XQuery is so
tied to it and thus inherits its issues plus has hundreds of its own
issues (this isn't an exagerration) I'm wary as to how interoperable it
can possibly be.
> Please, Dare, if there are things that require undue
> difficulty, be very
> specific about what they are, and post to our public comments
> list. Don't
> just implement whatever seems easiest and ignore the spec.
>
I don't post to public comments lists any more. I have 3 unanswered
questions on the W3C XML Schema list. My issues are now discussed with
MS W3C representatives and my coworkers since that moves less glacially
then expecting an answer from a public comments list.
--
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.
|
