W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > December 2003

RE: [XQuery] static typing of node comparisons

From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:30:15 -0800
Message-ID: <EB0A327048144442AFB15FCE18DC96C7016FA9A5@RED-MSG-31.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@yahoo.com>, "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Cc: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>

First, unless I explicitly say otherwise, my answers are not the
official W3C position. 

Second, we are certainly interested in interoperability. However, at
least some members of the WG are also realists in understanding that
different platforms will always have minor differences in numeric
precision etc.

That some implementations will be statically conservative and some
implementations will choose the dynamic typing will reduce the
interoperable set to the queries that are statically correct. Given the
trade-off and that there is a way to make the dynamic checks explicit, I
find this "interoperability issue" to be of minor concern.

Best regards

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dimitre Novatchev [mailto:dnovatchev@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 6:17 AM
> To: Michael Rys; David Carlisle
> Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [XQuery] static typing of node comparisons
> [David Carlisle]
> > Also many of us do not work in closed environments. We distribute
> > that is intended to run on any (all) systems, by unknown users.
> > Anyone who tries this in the future is going to be swamped with
> > reports from end users who are trying to run code on a system using
> this
> > static typing.
> [Michael Rys] I am sure that there will be enough other differences to
> make the code to run on all systems problematic. There are enough
> implementation variations that you get by implementing arithmetic for
> example on different platforms, that you will have to deal with that.
> [Dimitre Novatchev] It is not a good practice to justify one bad
> decision on the basis that anyway there are a lot more (problems
> from other) questionable design decisions. In this way we can justify
> almost everything and there's no sense in discussing problems at all.
> I would like to see David's concern addressed more seriously and not
> simply turned away without giving it any consideration at all.
> Or is it the official position of the WG that no attention will be
paid to
> problems of portability?
> Thank you,
> Dimitre Novatchev.
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2003 12:31:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:15 UTC