justink at rochester.rr.com
Sat Mar 2 22:10:55 UTC 2002
I have updated the doc to incorporate some of the ideas...
namely, the embedding sql
XPath would drastically increase the complexity of the protocol without
much benefit. esp now that SQL can be embedded.
On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 13:41, Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> On 3/1/02 12:06 AM, "Fabrice DESRE" <fabrice.desre at francetelecom.com> wrote:
> > Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> >> I don't want to sound contrary but wouldn't it be easier to just use raw
> >> SQL
> >> inside of the <query> rather than XMLify the entire query?
> > I agree. And it offers the possibility to use the full range of SQL
> > expressiveness. Take a look at the XML format for XQuery to have an idea
> > of how complex and "humanly" unusable an XML description of such a query
> > language could be... (a simpler but equally meaningful example would be
> > an XML syntax for XPath)
> Yes, it is pretty messy (and verbose).
> >> If we want to go XML for XMLs sake, we may be better served in using XML
> >> Query since it is a standard. Why reinvent the wheel? It does lack
> >> updates
> >> but we could use the most popular extension of it for updates...
> > Because XQuery can only query XML databases, and not
> > relationnal/object relationnal ones. It will take long before these
> > databases disappear...
> I'm not sure that is as much an issue. Most database vendors seem to be
> doing XML bridges to their RDBMS and XQuery seems to be the way to go.
> However it really seems like SQL for RDBMS is going to be superior for a
> I'm not sure if I'm being consistent at all here... :)
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards