[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 07:16:37AM -0400, AndrewWatt2000@aol.com wrote:
> I think it is a common situation that arises in communicating complex ideas.
> What is "clear" to the writer may still be "opaque" to the reader.
>
> And I am "encouraging" the WG to produce a Primer (analagous to the one for
> XSD Schema). At the moment I get the impression that I am not pushing at an
> open door.
I suspect it's a matter of timing. The Working Group is concentrating
hard on getting the primary documents published.
Tutorials need to be written based on final documents.
For XML Query, you'll find some good examples in the Use Cases document.
XML Query seems to me to have been improving steadily over the past
two years or so, and in particular is now much more closely aligned
with the way W3C XML Schema types and validation work. I should
probably add that this doesn't preclude something like relax-ng
validation in a future version -- only the basic type system is wired
in, and if you're going to have a type system, it does seem to make
some sense to build it on other type systems in use with XML.
People here complaining about Schema support should note that it's
optional: the Basic Conformance Level of XML Query doesn't require it.
Users also don't have to worry about it. If you want to get the
benefits (colour all links red, and all headings blue, find me all
dates between these ranges used in changelog entries and make an
RSS feed, find all elements derived from CorporateTypes-phoneNumber and
check they don't contain our old telephone numberextensange prefix), then
you'll be glad of the new features.
Best,
Liam
--
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, liam@w3.org, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/
|
