- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 05:51:13 -0800
- To: "Jonathan Robie" <jonathan.robie@datadirect.com>, "XML Query Comments" <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Hi Jonathan: Thank you for your comment. The WGs discussed this at last week's joint meeting and decided that no change was needed. All the best, Ashok -----Original Message----- From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robie Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 1:50 PM To: XML Query Comments Subject: Should fn:string() and xs:string() be synonyms? We currently have a function called fn:string() and a constructor called xs:string(), which both create strings. There is some justification for having both. xs:string is a constructor for a built-in type, and all built-in types have associated constructors. fn:string() is a widely used function in XPath 1.0, so it is difficult to remove it at this point. But they are defined differently. fn:string() uses the string value, whereas xs:string() atomizes the node and casts the result to a string. These two definitions give subtly different results. Could one be made a synonym for the other, to avoid confusion? Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 08:51:48 UTC