- From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:25:43 +0200
- To: John Lumley <john@saxonica.com>
- CC: public-expath@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51DFE7B7.8040506@kosek.cz>
On 9.7.2013 18:18, John Lumley wrote: > * hexBinary forms can be defined in XSLT by applying > bin:to-hexBinary(in /as xs:base64Binary*/) /as xs:hexBinary?/ and > bin:from-hexBinary(in /as xs:hexBinary*/)/as xs:base64Binary/? Actually we don't need these functions, as xs:base64Binary can be casted to xs:hexBinary (and vice versa). So using just xs:hexBinary(... xs:base64Binary value here ...) and xs:base64Binary(... xs:hexBinary value here ...) would do the trick. > * I'm also advocating that bin:binary-/functionName/() as the prefix > is redundant on 'binary' and makes the function call to long to read > comfortably. Indeed, I think that there was already agreement on this. > * bin:binary() isn't very comfortable as a (very overloaded) name, but > I can't think of anything else. Not that this would improve situation to much, but we can call the functions just bin:bin(), bin:hex() and bin:oct() -- all will have just three letter name. Jirka -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------ Professional XML consulting and training services DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing ------------------------------------------------------------------ OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 rep. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bringing you XML Prague conference http://xmlprague.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 11:26:16 UTC