W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2010

[Bug 9758] New: Group By Clause: Equivalence: GroupingSpec

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 07:05:59 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-9758-523@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9758

           Summary: Group By Clause: Equivalence: GroupingSpec
           Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
           Version: Working drafts
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XQuery 1.1
        AssignedTo: jonathan.robie@redhat.com
        ReportedBy: jmdyck@ibiblio.org
         QAContact: public-qt-comments@w3.org


[Reiterates part of point #2 from
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-query/2009Nov/0075.html (Members
only)]

Re the definition of "equivalence of two atomic values"...

In a definition whose "parameters" appear to be merely two values, it's odd to
have one of the rules suddenly talk about a GroupingSpec. And while it could
maybe slide by if 'equivalence' were only used for 'group by', it's now used by
Switch too, so talk of GroupingSpec makes no sense.

I tried to find a solution involving just changes of wording, but it was ugly.
(The problem is that a GroupingSpec might or might not specify a collation, and
a Switch never specifies a collation.) So I think we should turn equivalence
into an actual pseudo-function, with a third parameter, C, which is an optional
collation.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 07:06:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:42 UTC