[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 10:26 AM 9/30/2003, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>As for XQuery being able to support other XML schema languages in future,
>this is nice but I'm curious as to what exactly this means in practical
>terms. The working group already has seen the problems caused when one
>group builds a "type system" (and I use the term loosely) which they
>believe can work for some future language only for their assumptions to
>come out wrong. I originally was of the mind that this was a laudable goal
>of XQuery and still think it is a laudable goal to have it in the data
>model but wonder how feasible it is to actually create an XQuery
>implementation with what is basically a "pluggable" type system. A
>validation language with pluggable datatypes (which are basically custom
>checking on string values) like RELAX-NG has is fairly straightforward
>enough but a creating a pluggable type system where you have to deal with
>issues like type promotion & type substitutability is a bit harder.
I think that the data types of XML Schema Part 2 would have to be a given.
But this is the most common set of types used in RELAX-NG as well.
On the other hand, validation in XQuery is pretty much a black box.
Currently, we import W3C XML Schemas, and validation is defined by that
spec. But there's nothing to say we couldn't import a different kind of
schema and use that for validation, as long as the named types are properly
assigned, and the built-in atomic types of W3C XML Schema are the ones used
for simple types.
Jonathan
|
