[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tue, 6 May 2003 13:04:36 -0700, Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> What conformance levels mean from the perspective of XQuery has been
> clearly spelled out in the XQuery language working draft for at least
> the past 6 months. If you are unaware of it I suggest reading
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#id-conformance
Clearly?? We *are* talking about the XQuery magnum opus here :-)
"In principle" was the operative point. My point was that the XQuery WG
could, in principle, define a "Minimal XQuery" that relaxed the constraints
of section 2.6.1, something along the lines of (just making this up,
obviously it's not proper spec-ese):
----------------------------------------------------------
In a Minimal XQuery implementation, the in-scope type definitions consist
only elements, attributes, and text
A mapping from a Post-Schema Validation Infoset (PSVI) to the Data Model is
specified in [XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Data Model]. In a Minimal XQuery
implementation, this mapping maps everything to a string, as God and XML
1.0 intended.
If the processing of an expression depends on the type of some value, a
Minimal XQuery implementation raises a dynamic error.
A Minimal XQuery implementation must not raise no freakin' type errors,
ever.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Of course, this is not likely to happen, but that seems to be something
like what Joe English and Dave Pawson would have liked to see.
p.s. and somewhat OT: Since we seem to have opened up the "datatypes and
XML" permathread, I noticed that even Bruce Eckel is beginning to wonder:
"if strong static type checking is so important, why are people able to
build big, complex Python programs (with much shorter time and effort than
the strong static counterparts) without the disaster that I was so sure
would ensue? " http://mindview.net/WebLog/log-0025
[The alternative he notes is "strong testing" in the XP sense, not "do your
own thing."
A similar epiphany is described at
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=4669]
|
