[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
7/6/2002 2:01:33 PM, Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com> wrote:
>
>
>These are precisely the reasons I want to be able to have type safety when
>I need it. If schemas evolve in a way that changes the name of the 'price'
>element to 'list-price' for some instances but not others, then my
>function will always computed 0 as the total
OK, well, it's kindof the opposite approach that WorldCom and Enron took to
accounting and might go over well in the modern world, but most companies
I'm familiar with would be a tiny bit upset to get a check for $0.00 because
they sent an invoice with the new tag for the price field rather than the
old one :~) And most CEOs get a tiny bit upset when the IT folks
throw away revenue opportunities because someone sent them a PO with an
extra <p> tag or whatever ...
But seriously, I can understand where you're coming from and understand that
XQuery does not *force* one to "eat their spinach" and do the strongly
typed Right Thing in order to use it. Still, it would be more effective
in evangelizing XQuery to emphasize that while you have invested heavily
in making strong typing / PSVI / etc. work, XQuery does not impose this
on end users.
It does impose heavily on implementers, which is why I fear that we will see a
repeat of the SQL (92 and 99) situation in the XML world -- no single vendor will support
all the spec, at least in the same way as others, for some time to come.
|
