W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > November 2008

Re: [DTB] Remaining editor's notes...

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:55:22 +0000
Message-ID: <491C079A.40906@deri.org>
To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> 
> Axel Polleres wrote:
>> 1)
>> "Editor's Note: The following treatment of built-ins which may have
>> multiple arities is a strawman proposal currently under discussion in
>> the working group."
>>
>> waiting for the issue, this issue will remain for the moment.
>>
>> 2)
>> "Editor's Note: The working group is currently discussing, whether in
>> addition to adopting the fn:compare function from [XPath-Functions], own
>> predicates pred:string-equal, pred:string-less-than,
>> pred:string-greater-than, pred:string-not-equal,
>> pred:string-less-than-or-equal, pred:string-greater-than-or-equal not
>> defined in [XPath-Functions] shall be introduced, following the
>> convention of having such predicates for other datatypes."
> 
> This issue has not been resolved. Therefore, the editor's note should
> not be removed.
> It should be kept to remind us that there is still something to discuss.
> 
> As a general rule, I do not think that editors of documents should
> decide on issues that are still under discussion in the working group.

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2008-09-27#issue__2d_67_string__2d_less__2d_than

Indeed, no formal resolution there on that issue, a majority in the DTB 
breakout was for it.

After some rethought, It is fair enough to add these, IMO. Rationale: in 
the light of viewing the
-equal, -less-than -greater-than ... predicates as backing up the
eq, lt, gt, le, ge, ... generic (not datatype-specific) operators in 
common languages which we should have in any  reasonable presentation 
syntax such as the planned "abridged" PS... I think this is needed, for 
  the current full PS, I still have the impression that readers struggle 
with it.

We still have the issue with the "duplication" of equality here, i.e.
what is the difference between
  1 = 1.0
and
  External ( numeric-equal( 1 1.0 )


 > I luckily caught this message, but there might have been other such
 > notices that I missed.

re-added an editor's note pointing to Issue-67, whiich the former ed 
note didn't, thanks for paying attention.

Axel


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 10:56:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:58 GMT