Re: [Exist-development] How 'at-relative' extention of the import clause that will facilitate module sharing

[Thomas W. <tho...@gm...>]

James,

I am glad we are on the same page :-)

I do not see any problem when 'at-relative' becomes widely accepted and used
in our XQuery code. There will be no point of trying to be portable for a
feature that is not available in any other implementations. On other hand
this could become easily a 'specification by implementation' and eventually
being adopted by W3C working group.

At this point of time the only feasible option for me is to ask somebody to
do the implementation of 'at-relative'.
Then I will be able to complete the alpha version of my eXe framework and
offer a convenient way to pack and distribute XQuery libraries and
applications.

I have tried to find an URL in W3C  web site where I can submit a
proposition for 'at-relative' so far unsuccessfully.
Can somebody please point me to URL where I can do so.

Regards,
Thomas

------

Thomas White

Mobile:+44 7711 922 966
Skype: thomaswhite
gTalk: thomas.0007
Linked-In:http://www.linkedin.com/in/thomaswhite0007
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thomas.0007





On 4 June 2010 06:59, James Fuller <jam...@ex...> wrote:

> Hello Thomas,
>
> I push xquery well beyond its intended limits most days, so you are
> preaching to the 'converted' for me and for most folks on this list ;)
>
> As for the functionality of 'at-relative', sure it can be useful and there
> are several ways to implement it. ... I am against any ways that make a new
> language versus staying within the boundaries of xquery as defined by the
> W3C which is why I suggested using options.  If we implement and someone
> uses 'at-relative' then we make a users xquery non portable ... I guess
> thats not a problem for you but it will be a problem for others.
>
> You are right that working groups at the W3C are slow but I feel that
> xquery v1.1 has some momentum and would once again suggest you submit your
> comments ... why not put trust in the people who created the language in the
> first place to get it right a second time ?
>
> I think the issue you have is timing, e.g. you want this functionality now,
> to summarize you can:
>
> 1) the nice thing about open source (versus other vendors who are not open
> source) is you can do it yourself now
>
> 2) ask someone to do it for you
>
> 3) pay someone to do it for you
>
> option 1) depends on you,
> option 2) if I was to do it I would do it the way I think is best
> option 3) all of use exist dev people do paid for work on eXist as well.
>
> Great to see someone showing their passion for the language and just wanted
> to say we are both on the same side!
>
> hth, James Fuller
>
>
>