Altova Mailing List Archives


The XPath/XQuery juggernaut (Was: limits of the generic)

From: AndrewWatt2000@---.---
To: jeni@------------.---, -------@-----.---.---
Date: 10/1/2002 12:23:00 PM
In a message dated 01/10/2002 11:48:08 GMT Daylight Time, jeni@j... writes:





> So far, I've just resigned myself to ignoring XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0

> and XQuery.



Back with the first release I thought "this design is just dreadful,

but they're just the first WDs, and James Clark is in the WG; he'll

make sure it isn't totally screwed up". Then he left. Then on the next

release I thought "this design is just dreadful, but they're just the

second WDs, and Mike Kay is in the WG; he'll make sure it isn't

totally screwed up".



Now we're on the third or fourth WD (depending on the spec), heading

rapidly for Last Call, and I wish I'd raised more of my concerns, more

loudly, earlier in the process. I don't want to see a pair of

languages that I loved for their elegance and simplicity turned into

the monsters that they're becoming. But I'm just one, easily ignored

voice, without a big corporation behind me and without either James

Clark's or Mike Kay's authority. Now I'm an invited expert on the WG I

can argue, I can vote, I can register dissent, but I doubt that any of

that will turn this juggernaut around.



XSLT and XPath users of the world, unite! The WGs will take your

silence as approval, not disgust. Send your comments to

public-qt-comments@w.... It doesn't matter if you don't have a

solution to all of XPath's woes -- the WGs are there to create the

solutions -- but it does matter if you think the languages are off

track, especially if that means you're not going to use them. None of

us want XPath/XSLT 2.0 to turn into another W3C XML Schema or XLink.







Jeni,



Congratulations on joining the juggernaut. :)



I suspect it is far too late for you to have any tangible effect on XPath 2.0/XSLT 2.0/XQuery 1.0 but would be delighted to be proved wrong.



Increasingly, as I observe W3C process from the outside the "black box" which sets the juggernaut for any particular technology going happens outside the public gaze yet seems of great importance in setting the foundations of the embryonic technology. I am referring to the definition of a Requirements Working Draft.



To the best of my knowledge the community for a technology is, in reality, not consulted in the development of a Requirements document - other than the arguable figleaf of "the community" who also happen to be W3C members.



Discounting SMIL, the XPath 2.0 and XSLT 2.0 specifications are arguably the first XML-based W3C technology which is well in process to reach version 2.0. The failure (to the best of my knowledge) of W3C to consult the XSLT/XPath community is a significant failure of W3C process, in my view. It may not be a failure in "W3C Process" but I suggest that that document be revisited and revised in the light of the need to consult an existing technology community.



Specifically, I would propose that the community be consulted at the stage that a Requirements document is first being considered.



It isn't impossible for a WG developing a complex technology to consult and respond to a developing user community. The SVG 1.0 REC demonstrates that consultation and response to that consultation is possible. Many requests from the SVG community were fed in to the W3C and, at the risk of generalising, have appeared in the Requirements documents for SVG 1.1, 1.2 and 2.0. In my view, the SVG process contrasts profoundly with the frustrating fig leaf consultations about W3C XML Schema and XPath 2.0/XSLT 2.0/XQuery 1.0 which took place last year (or was it the year before?) and earlier this year on XML-Dev.



Another facet of the SVG process that usefully bears comparison with the XPath/XSLT/XQuery process is that the Chairman and Editor(s) of the SVG specs interacted (usually) promptly and frankly with the community. In fact, they were in effect part of the community. Apart from the notable work done by Michael Kay, as an author and on XSL-List, can such involvement be claimed for XPath/XSLT/XQuery? It seems to me that involvement can make the difference between WG members being in touch with a community or being out of touch.



The more scrutiny that W3C specs receive at early stages of development the better. When frustrating pseudo-consultations become the norm, the W3C can't be surprised when those who might usefully comment choose to make better use of their time than provide input which will be ignored.



Hopefully Liam will recognise the need for version 2 and later of XML specs to authentically consult the relevant user communities.



Andrew Watt

Disclaimer

These Archives are provided for informational purposes only and have been generated directly from the Altova mailing list archive system and are comprised of the lists set forth on www.altova.com/list/index.html. Therefore, Altova does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, reliability, completeness, usefulness, non-infringement of intellectual property rights, or quality of any content on the Altova Mailing List Archive(s), regardless of who originates that content. You expressly understand and agree that you bear all risks associated with using or relying on that content. Altova will not be liable or responsible in any way for any content posted including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in content, or for any losses or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of or reliance on any content. This disclaimer and limitation on liability is in addition to the disclaimers and limitations contained in the Website Terms of Use and elsewhere on the site.