> On 9 May 2015, at 21:46, daniela florescu <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> >>> I get a single conclusion: the XQuery 3.1 committee has a total lack of >>> vision and leadership in the NoSQL world. >> >> Well you might be right there. Standards groups don’t really do vision and >> leadership: they argue about braces and semicolons. > > > Michael, > > I don’t get it. > > You entire answer is telling me: "Standards groups don’t have (technical) > vision and leadership." > > That’s a HORRIBLE state of affairs, and I am surprised that this statement > (that is indeed true) doesn’t shock you.
Standards groups spend their time hammering out compromises to reconcile different visions. The result is very often a compromise. If they get it right, the result is a specification that meets a wider range of requirements and is acceptable to a wider community. But very few standards are noted for technical elegance. > > Then, how about they shut up and stop doing things, and imposing wrongly > designed stuff on people. Or they could listen to people > who actually DO have technical vision and leadership !? Reminds me of my first XQuery group meeting: I was shocked by how many highly talented people there were with good ideas, all wanting to take it in different directions. > > It seems that by “doing” things the XQuery WG hurts more then by being quiet, > and close down. > > In particular, XQuery 3.1 is a failure because has NOT been designed with the > major requirement in mind they should have had, which is: > > *************************** > > Make BOTH communities happy: XML and JSON, and help them work and integrate > together. > We definitely had people on the working group with the ambition to create a query language suitable for either XML or JSON as equal partners. Others felt that that was an unrealistic goal, and that XQuery should remain an XML query language with the ability to interoperate with JSON (and other formats) as second-class citizens. If you’re going to get anywhere in standards work, you have to appreciate that there’s going to be more than one vision, and that none of them are self-evidently right or wrong. > Why should some past choice made by XSLT in the past be more important then > the goal I just stated — in big scheme of things !? > > See above. You get inputs from lots of different directions, and they are all valid perspectives. Michael Kay Saxonica _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
