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

RE: Another question re: ACTION-920

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:42:35 +0100
Message-Id: <D13BC905-0B14-4659-89AB-2524B721B04A@deri.org>
To: "RIF (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
1)

> > 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.
>

Acknowledged, but in that case

*  should we remove the "(adapted from fn:subsequence)" as it is quite  
different?
*  what is the indented behavior if ?stop is before ?start?
    i.e.
      sublist(List(0 1 2 3 4) 4 2) = ???

2)
> Yes, because negative indexes have a defined and useful meaning.
>
> See:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/#Position_Numbering
>
>
> > I changed that to xs:nonNegativeInteger, since it made more sense  
> to me.
>
> Please change it back.
>
>     - s

Acknowledged as well, changed back to xs:int and referred to that  
section where necessary... please check.

best,
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 Monday, 21 September 2009 00:43:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 September 2009 00:43:18 GMT