W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > September 2009

Re: Another question re: ACTION-920

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:02:14 -0400
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
cc: "RIF (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <25060.1253458934@waldron>
> yet another one (this is how far I got regarding ACTION-920 so far):
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#func:sublist_.28adapted_from_fn:subsequ
> ence.29
> 
> 4.11.4.4 func:sublist (adapted from fn:subsequence)
> 
> Note that this function as it stands so far is quite different from  
> fn:subsequence. First, fn:subsequence has no ?stop position argument,  
> but ?start ?length instead, second the domain for these two parameters  
> as defined for fn:subsequence is xs:double)
> 
> I suggest to go with the way that fn:subsequence proposes, i.e.
> ?start ?length
> instead of
> ?start stop
> 
> In general, I am afraid I need some more time to check all of the list  
> functions, hope to be finished before the next telconf though.

This decision was made a long time ago, and it's too late to change it
(that is, it's after Last Call) without new information, etc.  It's not
like this is a bug; it's a coinflip decision we made as a group.

   -- Sandro
Received on Sunday, 20 September 2009 15:02:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 20 September 2009 15:02:30 GMT