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

Re: node equality: fn:node-equal()

From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:38:41 +0200
Message-ID: <3EC34401.6090709@pinkjuice.com>
To: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
CC: public-qt-comments@w3.org

Michael Rys wrote:

> And why can't you write the function yourself? 


I said I could; see the original post.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003May/0171.html


> I am not convinced yet that such a function has a general enough value. 


OK.


> Also note that the more functions the WG is defining, the longer it will
> take until implementations will have fully conformant implementations. 
> 
> I would much rather have an incremental development of the function
> library and continue to add functions over time. This means that you
> need to postpone functions that have less general value for a later
> version.


OK.


> And your function below for me falls into the postponing category for
> the following reasons:
> 
> 1. I still don't fully understand the semantics
> 2. The semantics that I infer from your description (shallow-equal) is
> in my opinion both cheap enough to write yourself


no doubt (I didn't state the contrary to the latter)

> and not general enough
> a function to be included.


I think it is general enough; if a definition can be found that most 
agree upon.


Tobi

-- 
http://www.pinkjuice.com/
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 03:40:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:24 GMT