Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> I wonder if anybody in the real world actually create cross processor > XQuery code. XQuery is interesting in that in several places it allows implementations to fail (unless it has changed) if they cannot for example figure out how to convert an XQuery into their native query capabilities. So this is a very different view of what standards are supposed to do: it is a standard as a range of syntaxes rather than as anything that allows product substitutability. That is a quite practical, but allowing, in effect, vendors to choose which features they implement is not what many people expect from a standard: if it involves the features you are interested in, you think you have been sold a pup. On the immediate issue of XSD, there is no technical reason to disallow support for element substitution groups for data-binding, as far as I can see. A schema that uses them can be transformed into an equivalent schema that uses them: in this particular case I don't see why they technically provide any obstacle to databinding tools, since they don't rely on any target capabilities (i.e. they are an injection mechanism, not a different component IYKWIM.) XBRL uses element substitution groups, so it is quite an important feature. So what is the reason? That XSD is just too damn big to be implemented fully by many system, not on technical reasons but for commercial reasons: the cost of the extra features are too much. This is surely the fate of large monolithic standards which don't allow proper layering or proper subsetting. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
