- 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