W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ql@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: IfExpr has a mandatory else clause

From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:28:48 -0500
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040128052547.030e78f0@ncmail.datadirect-technologies.com>
To: "TAN Kuan Hui" <kuanhui@xemantics.com>, "Bas de Bakker" <bas@x-hive.com>, <www-ql@w3.org>

At 09:40 PM 1/27/2004, TAN Kuan Hui wrote:
> > But resolving the ambiguity is important. For what it's worth, every entry
> > in this thread is reminiscent of discussions we had at length within the
> > Working Group. These are reasonable positions, but not new ones.
> >
>So if grammar ambiguity can be resolved, would the Working Group kindly
>reconsider having an optional else clause ?

Well, first off, this is the wrong list if you want to make a request of 
the Working Group. To give feedback to the Working Group, please use this list:

         <mailto:public-qt-comments@w3.org?Subject=Re:%20%5BXQuery%5D%20Computed%20CDATA%20constructor&In-Reply-To=%3C760A9F79-13C9-11D8-BD38-000A278462D6@apple.com%3E&References=%3C760A9F79-13C9-11D8-BD38-000A278462D6@apple.com%3E>public-qt-comments@w3.org 


If you make your comment there, then the Working Group will be required to 
make an official response. We will enter the message into a last call 
comments list and discuss it in a meeting, then announce what we decided.

If you want my prediction .... I think this has already been discussed to 
death on several occasions, and it is somewhat unlikely that we will change 
this. But if you make the comment on the public comments list (I think you 
have, actually), then we do have to consider this again.

Jonathan 
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:30:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 22 July 2006 00:10:19 GMT