RE: [XQuery] SAG-XQ-004 Unordered

Mike,

My apologies.  It was my intent to state the answer to that question in my 
response to your comment, but I obviously forgot.

The joint meeting decided that the new syntax applies *only* to XQuery and 
not to XPath 2.0.  XPath 2.0 will have to get by with only the 
fn:unordered() function ;^)

Hope this helps,
    Jim

P.S., With this additional information:  are you willing to accept this 
resolution for your comment?

At 02:31 AM 5/8/2004 Saturday, Michael Kay wrote:
> > The W3C XML Query WG and the W3C XSL WG have considered your
> > comment.  After discussion, the WGs jointly determined that
> > retaining the
> > fn:unordered() function was preferable to the suggestion you
> > made as part
> > of your comment.  In addition, a proposal was accepted to
> > adopt additional
> > syntax (unordered{...} and ordered{...}) that provides
> > syntactic sugar for
> > use of the fn:unordered() function when needed on many
> > "nested" expressions
> > in an XQuery.  This additional syntax might help ease the
> > concerns you
> > expressed about fn:unordered().
>
>The one thing that isn't clear to me from the minutes is whether this
>syntactic treacle is being added to XPath as well as XQuery. (If so, it
>would be the first use of curly braces within XPath, which seems a bit
>unfortunate.)
>
>Michael Kay

========================================================================
Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL)     Phone: +1.801.942.0144
Oracle Corporation        Oracle Email: jim dot melton at oracle dot com
1930 Viscounti Drive      Standards email: jim dot melton at acm dot org
Sandy, UT 84093-1063              Personal email: jim at melton dot name
USA                                                Fax : +1.801.942.3345
========================================================================
=  Facts are facts.  However, any opinions expressed are the opinions  =
=  only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of anybody   =
=  else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues at hand.  =
======================================================================== 

Received on Saturday, 8 May 2004 14:02:57 UTC