RE: MS-FO-LC1-093: fn:item-at

Thanks.

I am still puzzled by this decision of the F&O taskforce given that the
function does not really provide much over []. I will take this back to
my constituency and reserve the right to ask for the removal again
during the next last call.

Best regards
Michael 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ashok Malhotra
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:36 AM
> To: Michael Rys; public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: MS-FO-LC1-093: fn:item-at
> 
> Michael:
> As you may remember we discussed the removal of this function at the
F&O
> meeting in Redmond on 7/18 and the F&O taskforce decided not to
recommend
> its removal.
> 
> All the best, Ashok
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Rys
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 11:58 AM
> > To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: MS-FO-LC1-093: fn:item-at
> >
> >
> > Class: Editorial
> >
> > Section 15.1.6: We already have the [] notation for indexing
sequences.
> > This function is not needed except for defining the semantics of
> > [position()=x] (at most). In that case, move this into the formal
> > semantics as a function belonging to fs: pseudo-namespace.
> >

Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 16:57:11 UTC