Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 02:16 PM 7/8/2002 -0400, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>>I don't think that a query processor is as simple to write as an XML
>>>parser. That doesn't mean that queries are bad.
>>You seem utterly unwilling to acknowledge that the style of processing
>>you're pushing with XQuery is very very different from the style of
>>processing that takes place in parsing XML documents.
XML 1.0 reports structured labelled content. There's no notion of type
beyond the structures and labels provided. You're pushing a notion of type
that in my mind has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with XML and would
be better considered as a completely separate technology. That's what I
meant by "style of processing".
>Regardless, the best way to get a feel for what makes XQuery useful and
>attractive may be to download one of the more complete implementations and
>play with it. It takes time to grasp a new technology. And then perhaps
>the next time around we can discuss XQuery in terms of the language
>itself, with sample queries and concrete scenarios.
Sorry Jonathan, but at this point I'm not in the mood to play with 700-page
specifications that do both more and less than I need. (Yes, I'd like
update too.) I'll take another look at XQuery when it clearly presents a
subset for work with well-formed XML only, without inflicting typed
expectations on that understanding. I'm not willing to waste my time
playing in toxic turf controlled by an organization in which I have little
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue