<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 16, 2015, at 8:55 AM, Jim Melton <<a href="mailto:jim.melton@oracle.com" class="">jim.melton@oracle.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff" class="">
<tt class="">In passing, I would like to observe that the title of the W3C
Working Group being discussed is "XML Query Working Group" and the
charter of that WG speaks of developing a query language for XML. </tt></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Jim, </div><div><br class=""></div><div>please, this discussion starts to be repetitive and boring.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Stop running around the bush, too. Hypocrisy in technology is no good if you want to build useful; technology.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Simple hypocritical statement: “ we were not interested in querying JSON”. Huh. Yet you added JSON structures to it. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>Why not Protocol Buffer ? Why Not SQL relations ? Why not CSV ? Why not Scala structures ? The world is full of useful “stuff”….</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Why adding JSON, if you were explicitly not interested by it !?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>But obviously, I don’t expect an answer to this question. The answer is obvious. You think people can be so easily fooled!?</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff" class=""><tt class="">
JSONiq is a very good technology developed specifically to integrate
thorough JSON support alongside the XML Query facilities in XQuery. </tt></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>You bet it is. I don’t design shitty technology, and a lot of thought (not only mine, obviously, but a whole excellent team) went into that design.</div><div>[[ In fact, many good things in XQuery come from me: the functional aspect of XQuery, the FLWOR expression, the element constructor with dynamic content, </div><div>the functions, the windowing, the composability of updates, etc, etc.]]</div><div><br class=""></div><div>And, as a side, if you personally wouldn’t have told me “ We don’t need to hear your opinion” in a the middle of a W3C meeting, and you wouldn’t have allowed </div><div>Sharon Adler to kick me out of a W3C meeting by cutting my phone line (both illegal behaviors by the standards of W3C, but Liam didn’t seem to “notice"), </div><div>today XQuery would have had a very nicely designed Scripting Extension - similar to Stored Procedures in SQL, which would have enhanced the expressive</div><div> power of XQuery dramatically.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Like Zorba used to have, before Zorba team was killed, with your personal help, Jim.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>So, you know, Jim, please stop the hypocrisy and the wooden language here. I think it’s better for everyone.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I honestly don’t care, except that I feel sorry that all the (hardly acquired!) experience of XQuery is lost on the JSON guys, and they’ll see another 15 years of tribulations,</div><div>and billions of dollars wasted on the industry.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Hasta la Vista,</div><div>Dana</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff" class=""><tt class="">
However, as Mike Kay has stated several times, the goals of the XML
Query WG were not identical to the goals of the group who designed
JSONiq. Thus, given the primary focus of the XML Query WG and the goals
of its participants, it is not surprising that the results of the WG's
work differs from what the JSONiq developers might have hoped. <br class="">
<br class="">
Hope this helps,<br class="">
One of the morons </tt><br class="">
<br class="">
On 5/13/2015 2:35 AM, Ihe Onwuka wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:CALfs7+wVaDhF6LRuHVOSOhX+MOhqq3UvNcokvjX2aUMSqtNqXw@mail.gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 5:25 PM, daniela
florescu <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:dflorescu@me.com" target="_blank" class="">dflorescu@me.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br class="">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><span class="">>><br class="">
><br class="">
> You can be assured that we had lively debates on this topic,<br class="">
<br class="">
</span>After “living” in the XQuery W3C working group for 15
years….. I don’t doubt you had. I am just happy I was not there.<br class="">
<br class="">
But, sorry, W3C took the wrong decision: in one instant with this
decision, you lost the JSON community.<br class="">
<span class=""></span><br class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Is this not a variant of the Worse is Better
argument (or did I not properly understand that essay...... probably). <br class="">
<br class="">
The issue with many JSON people is that they don't seem to acknowledge
the need for interoperability with XML so the utility of a "bilingual
language" probably doesn't resonate. <br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Without wishing to appear informed can I ask
a question.<br class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Was the Crockfordesque faction represented
in the composition of the WG or was it (of necessity) a bunch of XML
people talking about how to support JSON?<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
========================================================================
Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL) Phone: +1.801.942.0144
Chair, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC32 and W3C XML Query WG Fax : +1.801.942.3345
Oracle Corporation Oracle Email: jim dot melton at oracle dot com
1930 Viscounti Drive Alternate email: jim dot melton at acm dot org
Sandy, UT 84093-1063 USA Personal email: SheltieJim at xmission dot com
========================================================================
= Facts are facts. But any opinions expressed are the opinions =
= only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of anybody =
= else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues at hand. =
======================================================================== </pre>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>