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: Mon, 19 May 2003 14:39:32 +0100
Message-ID: <9B66BBD37D5DD411B8CE00508B69700F049E17CD@pborolocal.rnib.org.uk>
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org

MK>
> > I'd request that the WG resolve this anomoly.
> 
> How would you suggest that we resolve it?
> 
> I mentioned the two alternatives in my email:
> 
> (a) don't make fn:doc() available to XSLT users
> (b) impose fn:document() on XQuery users

I make no recommendations for xquery.
My solution for xslt+xpath would be not to introduce
doc() function. Its redundant. document() clearly meets the needs of
users within that group. 



> 
> Option (b) isn't really an option: XQuery users don't want 
> the unnecessary
> baggage of the fn:document() function, especially as it has 
> never been part
> of XPath.

I don't understand that. Its' been there since 1.0 AFAIK,
(but I take xslt+xpath as one beast as you are probably aware).

 If doc or a modified document function is needed, perhaps
it could be introduced into xquery? Your interpretation appears to be
that it is not 'common' to xslt+xpath and xquery.




> 
> Option (a) creates an unnecessary incompatibility between 
> XSLT and XQuery.

I guess that you prefer the redundancy then Mike?
It appears to me to be two functions; 
doc() requested by xquery,
a nominal variant on document() from xslt+xpath, hence newly created.
  I don't believe it to be an unnecessary incompatibility

 

> This may not matter to you, but we believe it will matter to 
> many of our
> users. We think it will be very common for people to use both 
> languages as
> part of the same application.

That's a view.

regards DaveP

- 

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 
system.

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 Monday, 19 May 2003 09:40:09 GMT

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