>> We wouldn't have anything. The outcry would have been "SQL does all of that
>> already". If the counter arguments had been one metalevel above the current
>> understanding of the hordes of commenting parties, the political battle
>> would have been over right there.
Let's distinguish between the storage engine used for an SQL product and the
query language itself. Even though the storage engine of an SQL product might
handle nested sets, the SQL query language of that era wasn't powerful enough
for a reasonable person to argue "SQL does all of that already". Capabilities
such as XML schema mapping or using a DTD or schema to validate query results
were beyond the scope of the SQL language of that time.
It would surprise me if Jim Melton feels updating the standard from SQL-92 to
SQL/XML has been a slam dunk.
