[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: "Jonathan Robie" <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com>
> >* 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.
Don't tell me that, tell Simeon and Wadler :-)
> 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?
I won't, because that is not my point. {And I completely disagree with people who
are blanket against strong constraints (if such people indeed exist): some times it is
good to have strong, sometimes weak, sometimes in between. Sometimes strong
constraints are better handled by typing, sometimes by more general constraint languages
(e.g. Schematron). And I know it is only natural that once people have bought
into exchanging data using XML it is natural for tree-ishness to invade the
box and hence XML Schemas, typed infosets, data binding, XQuery. That is
cool. But it is not XML TM.}
Simeon and Wadler do a good service by characterizing XML+WXS=PSVI deficiencies,
but they waste their bullet by pointing their gun at "XML". (I hope nothing in my
comments shows any disrespect to them or the body of their paper!)
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
|
