On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 22:32 +0000, David Lee wrote:
[...]
> For function items I think a subset could be serialized such as
> fn:concat#2 ... but much like user defined types which would only
> work if there was an in band or out of band schema, arbitrary
> function items may require full XQuery lying around or worse, whatever
> proprietary language instantiated it. And thats not even considering
> the in-scope (lambda) variable problem.
Note, function items are also part of XPath 3.
[...]
> I had not considered either content-length, chunking, or EXI
> Food for thought ! Although I think any of those adds complexity
> (especially EXI ...)
Yes, I can't say whether the complexity is worth while.
> Although I would be all for EXI being enhanced to support XDM ...
I also; the EXI WG chose to focus on their profile for
memory-constrained devices in this period of their work, but they are
ilkely to be rechartered in the New Year, so we'll see what TPAC brings.
> It just disappoints me greatly that XPath, XSLT, and XQuery have this
> great data model with no standardized way of representing it.
+1
Both Saxon and Qizx have proprietary ways to serialize it in XML.
> Time for a beer
Maybe at Balisage -)
Liam
--
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
Co-author, 5th edition of Beginning XML, Wrox, July 2012.
