- From: Adam Retter <adam@exist-db.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:41:02 +0000
- To: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Cc: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, public-expath@w3.org
On 13 March 2013 18:07, Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org> wrote:
> On 13 March 2013 18:20, Adam Retter wrote:
>
>> An octet is implicitly in Base 8, so why would I then want to
>> manipulate it as thought it were Base 10 (but without
>> converting it to Base 10). This just doesnt make sense to me -
>
>> If I understand correctly -
>
>> bin:binary-to-octets(xs:hexBinary("FFFF")) would give me (255, 255)
>
>> The problem is that I now have two Base 8 values in a Base 10
>> data type
>
> I don't really understand. An octet is not more base 8 nor
> base 10. Neither is an integer. They are abstractions of
> numbers, they don't have any base (their lexical representations
> have a base though).
Maybe I am confused, but perhaps an example would show my point or
illustrate an error in my thinking -
bin:binary-to-octets(xs:hexBinary("FF")) would give me (255)
If I then use the XQuery operators on this integer (and it seems to me
they do assume Base 10), I get something that is no longer a valid
octet.
e.g. -
bin:binary-to-octets(xs:hexBinary("FF")) + 1 would give me (256)
bin:octets-to-binary((256))
This would give me an error correct? if this was truly an octet (or
the operations were Base aware) and I was adding 1 to it I would not
get the sequence (256) but rather (1, 0) I think...
Does that make sense, if not I will try a different example...
> Regards,
>
> --
> Florent Georges
> http://fgeorges.org/
> http://h2oconsulting.be/
--
Adam Retter
eXist Developer
{ United Kingdom }
adam@exist-db.org
irc://irc.freenode.net/existdb
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 19:41:34 UTC