[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 04:26 PM 7/8/2002 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>At 04:20 PM 7/8/2002 -0400, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>On the other hand, if you are satisfied with understanding only simple
>>types, you could try the simplest conformant subset of XQuery.
>
>I'd prefer that, but I'd prefer not to have to dumpster-dive through the
>rest of the specification to find it. That "simplest conformant subset"
>is not an obvious spec.
Sorry for replying to myself, but this frightened canary just went
dumpster-diving and wasn't very happy with what I found.
We have, in http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#id-introduction:
----------------------
XQuery is a strongly typed language.... XQuery is likely to have multiple
conformance levels. There may be a conformance level that does not include
static type checking. There may be a conformance level that does not
support Schema import, so that only built-in types and node types may be
used in declarations. [Ed. Note: See Issue 42 for a further discussion of
conformance levels.]
----------------------
At Issue 42 (http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#xquery-type-conformance) we find:
----------------------
42. xquery-type-conformance: Implementation of and conformance levels for
static type checking
Issue Class: T Locus: xquery Cluster: type-semantics Status: decided
Originator: Don
Description
Static type checking may be difficult and/or expensive to implement. Some
discussion of algorithmic issues of type checking are needed. In addition,
we may want to define "conformance levels" for XQuery, in which some
processors (or some processing modes) are more permissive about types. This
would allow XQuery implementations that do not understand all of Schema,
and it would allow customers some control over the cost/benefit tradeoff of
type checking.
This item is a duplicate of the Formal Semantics issue [link to member only
information] .
Actual Resolution
Addressed by the "Named Typing" proposal.
----------------------------------------------
I have a very hard time being comforted by the prospect of a "Named Typing"
proposal, especially one I cannot find. I don't think these are issues
that my "using XQuery" has any chance whatsoever of resolving.
How much time have I wasted on this today? Geez.
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue
|
