- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:45:35 -0500
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> > Michael Kifer wrote: > > > I made a proposal that we should treat builtins using the same mechanism as > > modules. For instance, if a builtin is defined in the XQuery/XPath library > > then we would refer to it as > > > > fn:dateTime(...)@http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions > > > > where fn is a prefix for http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions > > Isn't the URI enough to avoid clashes? > > What benefit does a module system offer in this case? > > [I realize the benefit of a module system for scoping but for a module > consisting of entirely global builtins that doesn't apply. Runtime > implementations might use modules to load/unload implementation > libraries but that has nothing to do with RIF.] For builtins the module system is not needed. It was just one way to indicate that we are dealing with something that is defined by an external library. I recall that people did not like the idea of deciding whether something is a builtin or not based solely on iris. But, on the other hand, the same builtin may be defined by different libraries, and the module system may open a way to use different libraries. --michael > Dave > -- > Hewlett-Packard Limited > Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN > Registered No: 690597 England > >
Received on Friday, 16 November 2007 16:49:35 UTC