[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
5/13/2002 9:45:14 AM, Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com> wrote:
>For XQuery, some people have suggested the following conformance levels:
>
>1. Some implementations use only built-in types, and can not import a schema.
Are we talking about the XPath built-in types or the W3C XSD "primitive"
types? My sense of the 80/20 point for typing is strings, date-time,
integers, floating points ... maybe 1-2 more. The 30 or so
"primitive" types that make controversial distinctions between
short and long integers, dates and times, etc. etc. do not seem like
a sensible starting point for a minimial conformance level.
>2. Some implementations may not be able to do static type checking.
>
>Do those seem like reasonable conformance levels?
What about the functions and operators? That seems at first glance
like something that could be pared down significantly for a
minimal implementation. I guess a lot of them would be
irrelevant if only the built in types are supported....
Anyway, I'd say that the minimalconformance level should
roughly correspond to the types and operations
supported by XPath 1.0 -- net the refactoring and cleanup that has
been necessary. I think that would leave us with what non-specialists who are
enthusiastic about XQuery think that it is: XPath + SQL-like
subexpressions to do joins, etc. + simple output reformatting.
INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE is another matter ... I can't see a use case for
XQuery (as opposed to XPath 2) that doesn't include them, but that
subject has been beaten to death. It's going to be either a way
for implementations to differentate themselves at the expense of
compatibility, or yet another area where real interop is coordinated
outside the W3C.
|
