RE: The Pithy Words of Wisdom Challenge (Was: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and)

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

Have you been reading my posts or someone else's? 
 
A.) I didn't claim that there aren't any problems with the recently
released XPath 2.0/XQuery 1.0/XSLT 2.0 family of specs. I said I hadn't
seen any substantive technical criticism on XML-DEV. There is a
difference. Heck, I've blogged about one or two issues I have with the
data model[0] quite recently. 
 
B.) I didn't claim there are no dependencies on W3C XML Schema. This
would be a particularly absurd claim to make given that the XQuery data
model describes an atomic type thusly 
 
"Definition: An atomic type is a primitive simple type or a type derived
by restriction from a primitive simple type. Types derived by list or
union are not atomic.]

The primitive simple types are those defined by XML Schema [XMLSchema
Part 2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/query-datamodel/#xmlschema-2> : "[1]  

 
[0] http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/5/6/135027/7019#rox
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/query-datamodel/#dt-atomic-type

--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Mincing your words is a good thing because you may have to eat them
later.                                            

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


 

________________________________

	From: AndrewWatt2000@aol.com [mailto:AndrewWatt2000@aol.com] 
	Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 1:46 PM
	To: Dare Obasanjo
	Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
	

	Dare,
	
	You seem to claim that there are no substantive problems with
the XQuery/XPath/XSLT triumvirate, dismissing concerns as "irrational
FUD".
	
	You also seem to claim that there are no dependencies on XSD
Schema. Which I find an interesting claim. None? Really?