W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > August 2003

RE: MS-FO-LC1-093: fn:item-at

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:23:17 -0700
Message-ID: <E5B814702B65CB4DA51644580E4853FB0A28E9C4@red-msg-12.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>, "Michael Rys" <mrys@microsoft.com>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
I'll create an issue for this.

All the best, Ashok 

________________________________

From: Kay, Michael [mailto:Michael.Kay@softwareag.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 8:13 AM
To: Ashok Malhotra; Michael Rys; public-qt-comments@w3.org
Subject: RE: MS-FO-LC1-093: fn:item-at

 

> Michael: 
> As you may remember we discussed the removal of this function 
> at the F&O meeting in Redmond on 7/18 and the F&O taskforce 
> decided not to recommend its removal. 

Was any decision made to align the semantics of item-at($s, $p) with
$s[$p], so that implementations can use the same underlying code? At
present item-at() fails if $p is out of range, whereas $s[$p] returns
().

Michael Kay 

> 
> All the best, Ashok 
> 
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments- 
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Rys 
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 11:58 AM 
> > To: public-qt-comments@w3.org 
> > Subject: MS-FO-LC1-093: fn:item-at 
> > 
> > 
> > Class: Editorial 
> > 
> > Section 15.1.6: We already have the [] notation for indexing 
> sequences. 
> > This function is not needed except for defining the semantics of 
> > [position()=x] (at most). In that case, move this into the formal 
> > semantics as a function belonging to fs: pseudo-namespace. 
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2003 11:25:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:13 UTC