RE: [xml-dev] Fwd: War of Attrition (was: [xml-dev] Underwhelmed (WAS: [xml-dev] XOM micro tutorial))

["Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Robie 
> [mailto:jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 11:32 AM
> To: Dare Obasanjo; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you are suggesting here. The language document
> (www.w3.org/tr/xquery) is pretty precise even without the 
> formal semantics, which are a formal definition of the 
> language. The user never reads or sees the formal semantics, 
> and there are no features that they can choose to use or not 
> depending on whether they want to use what's in the formal 
> semantics. Except for static typing - the formal semantics 
> tell the implementation how to spot some type errors, but 
> that's nothing that shows up in the user's query.

First of all,the formal semantics fails to define static typing since
most of its language refers to looking at the XML at runtime [which is
understandable given the type system is based on W3C XML Schema, a
validation language]. 

Secondly, please tell me where besides the Formal Semantics [which it
isn't even really defined in] where subtyping is comprehensively
described. 
 
> So what subset of XQuery are you suggesting people use to 
> avoid the formal semantics?

Don't touch anything involving subtyping, type equivalence or XSD
substitution groups with a 10 foot pole unless they are better examined
and defined by the working group. 


-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
Don't think of it as being outnumbered and surrounded, think of it as a
really low risk of ammunition wastage.         

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.