Re: XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL?

Subject: Re: XSL-T, XTL.... or XQL?
From: Joe Lapp <jlapp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 15:45:28 -0500
At 08:06 PM 3/8/99 +0200, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote:
>I don't think it is a novel notion. In
> XQL is clearly
>described as an extension of the XSL transformational part. I didn't find a
>formal requirements document for XQL, if there is such a thing, but I assume
>that compatibility with XSL would appear in such a document if and when it
>is written.

Actually, XQL was intended to serve as input to the XSL working group.  The XSL WG is continuing to evolve the XSL pattern language; the W3C will define the final pattern language that is to be used with XSL.

To complicate matters, the W3C may decide to create a query language for XML, and this language will very likely be neither XSL patterns nor XQL.

Nevertheless, several companies have put implementations of XQL into the hands of customers, so it is likely to have a life of its own.  XQL will then have to juggle backwards compatibility with XSL patterns compatibility.  If one does not end up being a subset of the other, XQL may be relegated to uses outside XSL patterns.
Joe Lapp, Senior Engineer
Core Technologies Team Lead

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread