# [tmql-wg] TMQL, next round

Robert Barta rho at bigpond.net.au
Wed Mar 7 03:44:38 EST 2007

On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 03:06:20PM +0100, Lars Heuer wrote:
> We should collect some of the primary datatypes and all other
> datatypes can be represented as (quoted) lexical representation and
> the datatype URI (or QName).
>
> IMO the following datatypes should make it into TMQL:
> - One of the floating point numbers
> - one integer datatype
> - xs:string
> - xs:anyURI
> - xs:boolean
> - xs:date
> - xs:dateTime ???
> - xs:time ???

??? means 'maybe'?

> >         + very rich collection, strong big-vendor support
> >         + constants can be written 'naturally' (3 instead of "3"^xsd:integer)
> >       => also all XPath 2.0 functions and operators have to be supported
>
> I don't understand why support of XPath 2.0 functions/ops is a logical
> consequence.

Well, there is no _strict_ dependency, but I would find it somewhat
sleazy to offer a data type, but not the functions related with it.

So with xsd:string would come

http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#string-functions

Of course, we can also say that this 'implementation', but then
compatibility is rather weak, not? And the standard is all about
compatibility....

\rho