[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 07:40 PM 1/11/2003 +1100, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>So their title and opening section are misleading or wrong still: not the
>essence of XML but the essense of XML Schema. I guess by hanging around
>XQuery people all the time, all the authors ever hear of XML is XML+WXS
>conflated, but I wish they would spare the rest of us.* At least their
>abstract is correct. And the body of the paper? I found it very
>interesting on a lot of fronts, and well worth a delve.
>
>* Perhaps it shows mindset at work that XQuery is "reforming" XML from a
>relatively untyped format with strings and tokens suitable for
>loosely-coupled systems which can be used with any datatyping
>convention, to a strongly typed format with a fixed number of primitive
>built-in types suitable for tightly-coupled systems: I heard a member of
>the XQuery WG say "without types you can't do anything!"
Members of the Query WG are all over the map on this, but you hardly need
XML Schema for XQuery - for instance, only one of the Use Cases actually
uses a schema, and that use case is specifically designed to use a schema.
Another use case, Use Case R, would probably be improved by giving it a
schema. Of course, XQuery exploits whatever type information is present.
I don't get the loosely-coupled vs. tightly coupled reference. Can you give
me an example of a loosely coupled scenario that is harder to handle in
XQuery than in, say, XSLT?
Jonathan
|
