Lists Home |
Date Index |
Michael Kay wrote:
>Mike Champion wrote:
>>To stick my neck out, I'd argue that it would not be a good
>>investment of time for the XQuery WG to write rigorous conformance
>>tests until it is much more clear which parts of the spec can be
> XQuery is not a big language. It is arguably smaller than XSLT 1.0. If
> vendors produce implementations that don't conform, this will probably be
> because they are trying to do things like translating the language into SQL,
> which is never going to work 100%. There's no good reason at all for native
> implementations to leave features out, other than vendors thinking their
> users don't care.
A W3C standard can't become a Recommendation without implementations.
It's useful to have tests that show what has been correctly implemented,
so that we can demonstrate that there really are implementations.