RE: [F&O] deep-equal

Thanks!  We are going to give it another try!

All the best, Ashok

-----Original Message-----
From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dimitre
Novatchev
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 5:57 AM
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: [F&O] deep-equal


> I commented on the previous draft (a day or so before the release of
the
> current draft) that deep-equal would be better in the user-defined 
> appendix:
> 
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Nov/0210.html
> 
> The version in this draft appears to be unchanged, so the comments
made
> there still apply. (deep-equal appears to be completely broken wrt to
> document nodes).
> 
> In addition I have noticed some further problems with the given
> definition.

If a function definition is so difficult to specify correctly (for 3
consequtive drafts) isn't it best to drop it from the document?

Please, consider removing fn:deep-equal() from the spec (or maybe give
it
a final try?).


Thank you,

Dimitre Novatchev.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/