[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Watson, John wrote:
> Ronald Bourret wrote:
> > Me, too, especially SQL/XML.
>
> I'd too like to hear more about the merits and demerits of SQL/XML.
>
> I find SQL/XML hits the sweet spot for me. Currently I need to
> interrogate a single relational schema in order to generate XML, which
> can later be styled to whatever output format is required using XSLT.
> SQL/XML is ideal - it doesn't require much more stuff to learn - just a
> bunch of XML generating primitives layered on top of nested queries,
> which is reasonably straightforward, although I find I easily get lost
> in the bracketing!
I agree.
I'm not sure that it hits the same sweet spot when SQL/XML adds all of
XQuery, plus a bunch of other stuff. Simplicity is a main virtue of
SQL/XML in SQL 2003. It's gonna get a lot less simple.
> What I really wanted from XQuery was its data
> manipulation language and I'm very disappointed that it doesn't even
> appear to be on the horizon. Instead I've had to devise my own XML
> update language as an extension of XUpdate.
We'll get there. We're not there yet.
Jonathan
|
