- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 08:31:37 -0800
- To: "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
David: Thank you for your comment. Both the implementations in C.2.3 eg:value-except use fn:distinct-values and so the result may be in an undefined order. The F&O taskforce discussed this on the 12/2 telcon and decided that no change was needed. All the best, Ashok -----Original Message----- From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Carlisle Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 7:53 AM To: public-qt-comments@w3.org Subject: [F&O] C.2.3 eg:value-except The description (possibly copied from C.2.1 eg:value-union) says " ...in an undefined order." However both the xslt and xquery implementations given preserve the input order. Either the phrase should be dropped or fn:unordered() should be used in the implementations. The equivalent comment in C.2.1 does not have this problem as there the implementations use fn:distinct-values() so do return things in an an implementation dependent (rather than undefined) order. David ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 11:31:39 UTC