 |
 |
On 11/28/06, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > but I don't really see the argument of "XQuery is a > standard". Just because it's a standard (vs. semi-ubiquitous API) > doesn't mean it will have the best tools for a particular problem > area. As I think back over these posts I think I've probably failed to communicate that it is not because XQuery is a *S*tandard that I find it interesting but because it is a *s*tandard (way of working with XML (designed specifically for XML)). After all, it really isn't a Standard yet anyway (it is in the final stages and should be by Jan though). Those who know me know I've been advocating non-Standards for awhile now precisely because I think they *are* sometimes better alternatives than the Standards (XOBIS over MARCXML/MODS, RELAX NG over W3C Schema, etc. -- though RELAX NG is a standard now: http://cafe.elharo.com/xml/relax-wins/) I think what interests me about XQuery isn't that it is a W3C endorsed Standard, but that it is a standard way of working with XML regardless of backend particulars (or, at least, that is the promise... it is not always the case (but that doesn't mean it should be thrown out either... it is still evolving)). Perhaps, stealing a page from Roy's phrasebook, I should have named my proposed presentation: XQuery: A Better Digital Library Hammer. After all, XML does not *do* anything (like a hammer would imply) but XQ does (XML is really the nail). Anyway, I'll stop my evangelizing for now. I can only attribute this annoying trait to the fact that I come from a long line of missionaries... perhaps I've missed my calling :-) Kevin