• To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>,"Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: RE: XQuery types was Re: Yet another plea for XUpdate...
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 10:36:22 -0700
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E05573D27@r...>

At 10:09 AM 5/8/2002 -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>I personally fail to see any reason why XQuery
>implementers should go out of their way to try to be interoperable if
>doing so would require undue difficulty on their end.

Are you seriously saying that vendors should implement whatever they want, 
instead of implementing the spec, if they find something that is easier to 
implement? Perhaps the W3C should stop writing "Recommendations" and start 
writing "Hints". But I don't see how that leads to interoperability, and I 
think users want interoperability.

Please, Dare, if there are things that require undue difficulty, be very 
specific about what they are, and post to our public comments list. Don't 
just implement whatever seems easiest and ignore the spec.

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XQuery types was Re: Yet another plea for XUpdate...
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: XQuery types was Re: Yet another plea for XUpdate...
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Is XML-REST more scalable than SOAP?
• Next by Date: Re: XPath 1.5? (was RE: typing and markup)
• Previous by thread: RE: XQuery types was Re: Yet another plea for XUpdate...
• Next by thread: RE: XQuery types was Re: Yet another plea for XUpdate...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread