Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 10:26 AM 9/30/2003, Dare Obasanjo wrote: >As for XQuery being able to support other XML schema languages in future, >this is nice but I'm curious as to what exactly this means in practical >terms. The working group already has seen the problems caused when one >group builds a "type system" (and I use the term loosely) which they >believe can work for some future language only for their assumptions to >come out wrong. I originally was of the mind that this was a laudable goal >of XQuery and still think it is a laudable goal to have it in the data >model but wonder how feasible it is to actually create an XQuery >implementation with what is basically a "pluggable" type system. A >validation language with pluggable datatypes (which are basically custom >checking on string values) like RELAX-NG has is fairly straightforward >enough but a creating a pluggable type system where you have to deal with >issues like type promotion & type substitutability is a bit harder. I think that the data types of XML Schema Part 2 would have to be a given. But this is the most common set of types used in RELAX-NG as well. On the other hand, validation in XQuery is pretty much a black box. Currently, we import W3C XML Schemas, and validation is defined by that spec. But there's nothing to say we couldn't import a different kind of schema and use that for validation, as long as the named types are properly assigned, and the built-in atomic types of W3C XML Schema are the ones used for simple types. Jonathan
|
