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

M Rys wrote:
> 
> You have to understand that XQuery has no problem with the 99% use of
> fn:document that takes a URI and returns a document.

I dislike the mandate Michael.
I keep repeating; xquery can do as it likes.
I do however, care about xslt+xpath and the negative impact that xquery
is having on it. 

> However,
> fn:document has so many special cases that are almost never used
?by whom? 
  On what evidence do you make that assumption?

> but
> complicate the functionality, that we felt fn:doc() is 
> providing the 99%
> functionality without all the additional baggage. 
> 
> You could see this to be the first stage of a deprecation of
> fn:document() in XPath. First, we provide a simpler function. 
> In a later
> version, fn:document() may be removed.

And screw all the xslt+xpath users of document()?
That's real good standards developments. I hope you feel proud.
That's a quote worth keeping for AC forum.

> 
> At least that's how I personally see the reason for keeping both in
> XPath.

I'm glad that's a personal view and not that of the WG.

regards DaveP


*** snip here ***

- 

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 Tuesday, 20 May 2003 03:28:22 UTC