- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 16:04:23 +0100
- To: Christian Grün <christian.gruen@gmail.com>
- Cc: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, EXPath <public-expath@w3.org>, John Lumley <john@saxonica.com>
On 3 August 2013 15:54, Christian Grün wrote: >>> – have you thought about letting the bit functions operate on >>> octets (xs:integer*) instead of base64? >> We already discussed this. I did not look into the archive, >> but as far as I can remember, I think the outcome was that you >> can't have a sequence of 2 binaries in that case, because we >> can't have sequences of sequences (e.g. a function could not >> return 2 binary items). Using xs:base64Binary (for instance) >> does not have this problem. > I’m not sure what you mean here, as all binary operators function > expect single xs:base64Binary arguments and return a single > xs:base64Binary item (except for the bin:shift function, which also > allows an empty sequence in the current draft).. Could you give me a > little example that demonstrates the problem? I meant a user function (like a library to handle, say, images), which would like to return a sequence of binary items. For instance: (: split an image in 2 new images, horizontally :) img:split-horizontally($img as xs:base64Binary) as xs:base64Binary+ If a binary item is represented by a sequence of integers, then the above function is not possible (at least, it would not be possible to return a sequence of 2 binary "items", as they would be each a sequence). Does that make sense? Regards, -- Florent Georges http://fgeorges.org/ http://h2oconsulting.be/
Received on Saturday, 3 August 2013 15:05:11 UTC