W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-expath@w3.org > March 2013

Re: xs:hexBinary or base64binary (Was: Re: Comments on binary specification)

From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:08:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CADyR_r0xxkuY0vn9XynXRuvTmMoTSV6vfPeXznmfk-7jZ_Ax6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Cc: Christian Grün <christian.gruen@gmail.com>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, EXPath <public-expath@w3.org>
On 14 March 2013 10:50, Michael Kay wrote:

> Whichever of these is chosen, it should be clear that (like
> "numeric" in the F+O functions) it's not (necessarily) a real
> type that users can use in their own functions.

  Would not that restrict the usability of such a type?  I expect
users to write functions wrapping the binary functions, adding
features to them, proxying the params and/or the return values,
etc.  If their type is not representable by a user function (nor
for the type of a variable), I think that would be a huge
restriction in usability.


Florent Georges
Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 10:09:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:37 UTC