• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:41:52 -0800
• In-reply-to: <001101c18a05$7a438740$465169d5@pcukmka>
• References: <001101c18a05$7a438740$465169d5@pcukmka>

Michael Kay wrote:

> To sum it up rather briefly, I think XQuery 1.0 is essentially XPath 2.0
> plus
> 1) element and attribute constructors
> 2) function definitions
> 3) strong typing
> Of course (1) is available in a different form in XSLT 1.0, and (2) is
> available in XSLT 2.0, so you could say that apart from syntax, XQuery is
> XSLT plus strong typing minus template rules. Those might seem small
> differences, but I happen to agree with those who believe that the addition
> of strong typing and the absence of template rules are both very important
> when it comes to optimizing a query to execute against a large XML database
> with pre-defined indexes.

That makes sense.  XSLT is very difficult to optimize, so
XQuery has an advantage by virtue of what it leaves *out*.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@y...>

• References:
  • RE: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Goodbye to textual applications?
• Next by Date: Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
• Previous by thread: RE: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
• Next by thread: Re: Recently published W3C Working Drafts (long)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread