• To: "'Michael Champion'" <michaelc.champion@g...>,"'Liam Quin'" <liam@w...>
• Subject: RE: Getting specs/standards right (was UPA and schema handling)
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:46:00 +0100
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <e3a5cb2c041018065442f21a12@m...>
• Thread-index: AcS1GlabGvTSVy/dQRaeE8rBzpZtOgABiDWw

> 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.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Getting specs/standards right (was UPA and schema handling)
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Getting specs/standards right (was UPA and schema handling)
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: Getting specs/standards right (was UPA and schema handling)
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>

• References:
  • Re: Getting specs/standards right (was UPA and schema handling)
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Getting specs/standards right (was UPA and schema handling)
• Next by Date: Re: Getting specs/standards right (was UPA and schema handling)
• Previous by thread: Re: Getting specs/standards right (was UPA and schema handling)
• Next by thread: Re: Getting specs/standards right (was UPA and schema handling)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread