July 29, 2008 at 1:19 am
Don't wanna be too picky but from the answer:
The “//*” XQuery path matches every element node in the XML document, so (b) is also incorrect.
And I thought "B" was the correct one.;)
[font="Verdana"]Markus Bohse[/font]
July 29, 2008 at 8:18 am
MarkusB (7/29/2008)
Don't wanna be too picky but from the answer:The “//*” XQuery path matches every element node in the XML document, so (b) is also incorrect.
And I thought "B" was the correct one.;)
Yes, that's a typo on my part in the explanation 🙂 The correct answer is (b), the explanation should have read "...so (c) is also incorrect."
Thanks!
Mike C
July 29, 2008 at 10:16 am
Good question...
July 29, 2008 at 10:52 am
Very good question! Appreciate you work on this it will be valuable going forward in some of the work with xml.
Miles..
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
July 29, 2008 at 3:34 pm
If we win the book will it be autographed?
:w00t:
Chad
July 29, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Chad Crawford (7/29/2008)
If we win the book will it be autographed?:w00t:
Chad
Ha 🙂 Well, I believe my name is printed somewhere on it - that's just as good 🙂
July 31, 2008 at 7:48 am
Speaking of winning the book, does SQL ServerCentral ever announce who the winners are in these contests? It'd be nice to see in the daily email.
December 18, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Nice clear question and answer (apart from the typo in the explanation).
BUT: the more I see of this stuff the more I think the way XML was introduced into SQL Server was stark staring bonkers.
Tom
December 18, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Tom.Thomson (12/18/2010)
Nice clear question and answer (apart from the typo in the explanation).BUT: the more I see of this stuff the more I think the way XML was introduced into SQL Server was stark staring bonkers.
LOL. XML has an interesting history in SQL Server. In SQL 2000 (first version with built-in XML support; very minimal XML support via OPENXML and FOR XML), the XML functionality seemed to be almost an afterthought tacked on at the last minute. In SQL 2005 XML was completely re-vamped, with significant improvements (i.e., XQuery support, FOR XML PATH), but performance (and consistent performance at that) is an area that still needs to be seriously addressed. SQL 2008 added a couple of minor tweaks to XML (i.e., "let" clause in FLWOR expressions), but more complete XQuery functions and operators (F&O) support has not been implemented -- which makes it very painful to port any useful XQuery code over to SQL Server. There's a *lot* of room for improvement in SQL Server XML support... Hopefully these issues will be addressed sooner rather than later...
Mike C
March 10, 2015 at 2:51 pm
Mike C (7/29/2008)
MarkusB (7/29/2008)
Don't wanna be too picky but from the answer:The “//*” XQuery path matches every element node in the XML document, so (b) is also incorrect.
And I thought "B" was the correct one.;)
Yes, that's a typo on my part in the explanation 🙂 The correct answer is (b), the explanation should have read "...so (c) is also incorrect."
Thanks!
Mike C
Excellent question especially I am studying since 3 weeks to try to get the 70-461 exam for which XML is important.
A little remark : cheers to have recognized you have done an error in the explanation ( the b choice was the good one ). I know that it is always difficult to admit an error even if I think you have only interverted the b and c choices for the good answer , careless mistake or typo , it does not matter and cheers for your honesty )
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply