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