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

RE: TR/xquery-operators/#func-doc

From: <David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 09:58:35 +0100
Message-ID: <9B66BBD37D5DD411B8CE00508B69700F049E177F@pborolocal.rnib.org.uk>
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org

Thanks for the clarification.
Is this one more case where the needs of xquery and xslt+xpath
are 'slightly different'?

As the detail comes out, the number of places where this is occurring
appears to grow.

Does anyone on the WG have a count of these differences,
where the commonality of requirements do not fit?
  I would like a response to this question please.

I'll repeat my request.
  I would like to see the common items common, not nearly common.
Then xquery could go do its typed thing to its hearts content.

regards DaveP

> > 15.4.4 fn:doc
> > fn:doc($uri as xs:string?) as document? 
> > 
> > 
> > No mention of the current 1.0 practice, fn:doc('')
> > retrieving the current stylesheet.
> The "current stylesheet" is an XSLT concept; the functions 
> and operators
> document needs to be generic as the the functions can be used in many
> different processing environments. Nothing special is needed to make
> fn:doc('') continue to work: '' is simply a relative URI, so 
> this function
> call retrieves the resource whose URI is the same as the base 
> URI from the
> static context, which in XSLT will be the current stylesheet module. 
> > 
> > I regret the change from document() to doc().
> > An unnecessary change from an xslt perspective,
> > requiring work which is not necessary
> > when migrating from 1.0 to 2.0
> > 
> > What was the justification for the name change?
> > 
> The document() function is retained for use in XSLT. It was 
> felt that for
> environments other than XSLT, a simpler form of the function 
> was needed, and
> to retain backwards compatibility, a new name was therefore needed.
> Michael Kay


NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use, 
disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your 

RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any 
attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are 
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk 
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 04:59:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:12 UTC