Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Mike Champion" <email@example.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: RE: [xml-dev] XQuery and DTD/Schema?
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:00:49 -0700
- Thread-index: AcIi2Ywo8OokcdOVRCiY94r9EC6bIgAAUUEg
- Thread-topic: RE: [xml-dev] XQuery and DTD/Schema?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Champion [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 2:35 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: RE: [xml-dev] XQuery and DTD/Schema?
> I don't claim a deep understanding of structural typing vs
> named typing. I guess I
> have three reasons for being nervous about the direction
> XQuery is taking.
Thanks for stating that up front.
> First, I like specs that are either a) well grounded in
> actual practice or b)
> grounded in well-understood theory. The actual practice with
> WXSDL's type systems
> for non-trivial schemas seems spotty at best; this list is
> full of rather disturbing
> discussions that do not give me a warm feeling that people
> who understand this
> better than I do have the situation under control.
I've actually seen shipping products that use the W3C XML Schema type
system. How many have you seen that used tree-based regular expressions
as a type system for XML?
> XDuce may
> not be "well- understood theory", but a lot more work has
> gone into it than the current XQuery
> type system, no? What can anyone say to assure me that this
> is not "computer
> science by committee?"
XDuce is a research product whose descendants have all been research
projects as well. Trying to squeeze research ideas into a W3C standard
is exactly "computer science by committee". Your rant is correct but
> I can think of lots of scenarios where I would want my
> get-total() function to
> process the "merely well-formed elements whose name happens
> to be 'invoice'".
I agree. I am both dissappointed and stunned that such functionality
does not exist in XQuery.
> Finally, while I can understand the Query WG's desire to
> build on the rest of the
> W3C infrastructure, in practice this named typing approach
> disenfranchises the
> majority of the world that doesn't (yet???) use W3C Schema.
What do you suggest? That the XML Query working group ignore W3C XML
Schema because a lot of projects already used DTDs? Do you also suggest
we stop building any Java/C#/VB.NET programs because too many people
still use COBOL/C/Fortran and they are disenfranchised by not being able
to interact with APIs written in newer programming languages?
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Lynch's Law: When the going gets tough, everyone leaves.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no