Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@s...] > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 11:57 AM > To: Dare Obasanjo; Jeff Greif; xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: W3C's five new XQuery/Xpath2 working drafts - > Still missing Updates > >Are there really that many > >businesses that stand to lose that much money if they have > to use XPath for a few more months instead of jumping to > XSLT-with-different-syntax aka XQuery? > > XSLT is not strongly typed, is not set up for function > libraries, and has been rather difficult to optimize for large repositories. I for one would like to see someone elaborate on these points, and relate them back to the original question more clearly: How is XPath's lack of strong typing or functions going to cost anybody money in the next couple of years? Is the difficulty of syntax-level XPath optimization (transforming a query expression into an equivalent expression that can be executed more efficiently) a significant cost factor for real businesses? I accept the desireability of XQuery being a language that can query an XML view of relations, objects, and XML documents/data in a consistent manner. In the long run, a unified notion of "types" has to be developed that transcends all three. What I don't see is a compelling BUSINESS case for prioritizing this above a simple update syntax along the lines of the simple SQL examples that people always cite as what they want to do with XQuery. What am I missing here?
|
