Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Michael Kay wrote: >Mike Champion wrote: >>To stick my neck out, I'd argue that it would not be a good >>investment of time for the XQuery WG to write rigorous conformance >>tests until it is much more clear which parts of the spec can be >>effectively implemented > > XQuery is not a big language. It is arguably smaller than XSLT 1.0. If > vendors produce implementations that don't conform, this will probably be > because they are trying to do things like translating the language into SQL, > which is never going to work 100%. There's no good reason at all for native > implementations to leave features out, other than vendors thinking their > users don't care. A W3C standard can't become a Recommendation without implementations. It's useful to have tests that show what has been correctly implemented, so that we can demonstrate that there really are implementations. Jonathan
|
