- From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 05:56:40 -0800 (PST)
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> I commented on the previous draft (a day or so before the release of the > current draft) that deep-equal would be better in the user-defined > appendix: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Nov/0210.html > > The version in this draft appears to be unchanged, so the comments made > there still apply. (deep-equal appears to be completely broken wrt to > document nodes). > > In addition I have noticed some further problems with the given > definition. If a function definition is so difficult to specify correctly (for 3 consequtive drafts) isn't it best to drop it from the document? Please, consider removing fn:deep-equal() from the spec (or maybe give it a final try?). Thank you, Dimitre Novatchev. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2003 08:56:41 UTC