RE: DN-FO-02: 15.1 zero-or-one, one-or-more, exactly-one

Thank you for your comment.  We have added explanatory text that should
address your concern.

All the best, Ashok

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dimitre Novatchev
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 10:43 AM
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: DN-FO-02: 15.1 zero-or-one, one-or-more, exactly-one
> 
> 
> Functions and operations on sequences, 15.1, zero-or-one,
> one-or-more, exactly-one
> 
> Class: Editorial, Technical
> 
> Section 15.1 Functions and Operators on Sequences defines the
> functions  zero-or-one, one-or-more, exactly-one.
> 
> The names describe properties and suggest that these functions return
> boolean result. However, this is not the case.
> 
> The function definitions are:
> 
> fn:zero-or-one($srcval as item*) as item?
> fn:one-or-more($srcval as item*) as item+
> fn:exactly-one($srcval as item*) as item
> 
> 
> Another issue with this function is that their main purpose seems to
> be in raising an error message if the property they name is not true
> for the parameter-sequence. Such functions seem strange and their
> necessity and potential usage must be explained in detail.
> 
> A third issue is that the description for all three functions
> contains the sentence: "The type of the result is the type of
> $srcval." This is clearly contradicted by the definitions of the
> functions - item* is not the same as item?, item+ or item.
> 
> Suggested solution:
>   1. Change the names to more precisely reflect the meaning of the
>      functions, e.g: constraint-zero-or-one, etc.
>   2. Note and explain the very special behaviour of these functions
>      and its potential usefulness.
>   3. Correct the description and/or the definition of the functions
>      so that they would not contradict each other.
> 
> 
> Dimitre Novatchev.
>

Received on Friday, 1 August 2003 08:44:59 UTC