OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: RE: [xml-dev] XQuery and DTD/Schema?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

At 03:17 PM 7/8/2002 -0400, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>Well, if supporting typed XML is "toxic turf" to you, there is probably 
>little to be gained by further debate on this subject. According to our 
>requirements, we need to support XML that is well-formed, governed by a 
>DTD, or governed by an XML Schema. You don't like our requirements. We are 
>required to meet them.

If you interpret that requirement as a commandment to drive typing into the 
core of W3C XML Query, then yes, you "are required to meet them."

The relevant requirement appears to be 3.3.2:
"The XML Query Data Model MUST represent both XML 1.0 character data and 
the simple and complex types of the XML Schema specification."

I would note that this follows 3.3.1:
"The XML Query Data Model relies on information provided by XML Processors 
and Schema Processors, and it MUST ensure that it does not require 
information that is not made available by such processors. For XML 
constructs found in XML 1.0 or the Namespaces Recommendation, the XML Query 
Data Model MUST show how the equivalent XML Query Data Model constructs are 
built from items in the XML Information Set. The XML Query Data Model 
SHOULD represent all information items, or provide justification for any 
information items omitted. For information found in the XML Schema, such as 
datatypes, the XML Query Working Group MUST coordinate with the XML Schema 
Working Group to ensure that schema processors may be relied on to provide 
the information needed to construct the Data Model."

I would suggest that it might well make sense to create an XML Query 
language which supports the foundation laid in 3.3.1 (minus the last 
sentence), and then carry on with that last sentence and 3.3.2 in a set of 
extensions.  Given that W3C XML Schema is effectively a set of extensions 
to XML 1.0, if a deeply unfortunate set, this might well be a more 
reasonable approach capable of keeping both of us happy.

(3.3.3 and 3.3.6 seem reasonable. 3.3.4 might create new problems, and 
3.3.5 has some good, some schema.)

If the W3C doesn't find that a useful approach, I suspect that sooner or 
later someone will get around to building a Query language for XML which 
doesn't involve any understanding of types.  It might in fact be simpler 
than understanding the current drafts.

Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS