- From: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 05:13:10 -0400
- To: "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>, <Svgdeveloper@aol.com>
- Cc: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
As I remember it, the main reason we chose individual functions was to ensure they each have strong typing of their input parameters and to ensure the appropriate return type e.g. xs:integer, xs:decimal or xdt:dayTimeDuration. /paulc Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com > -----Original Message----- > From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kay, Michael > Sent: May 4, 2003 7:37 PM > To: Svgdeveloper@aol.com; public-qt-comments@w3.org > Subject: RE: F&O - Is extract(month, myDateTimeItem) possible? > > > It would be possible, and it is an option that we considered, but we > decided > against it. I don't think the reasons were absolutely compelling; it is > hard > to argue a strong case for either solution over the other. (We also > considered a third solution, namely a single extract function that returns > all the components as a sequence). > > Michael Kay > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Svgdeveloper@aol.com [mailto:Svgdeveloper@aol.com] > > Sent: 02 May 2003 07:17 > > To: public-qt-comments@w3.org > > Subject: F&O - Is extract(month, myDateTimeItem) possible? > > > > > > > > I and a friend have been independently exploring the > > date-time functions in > > XPath 2.0 / XQuery 1.0. They are very tedious to hand code. > > > > Looking at this from a coder's point of view, it would be > > much nicer to have > > something like, > > > > extract(someDesiredDateComponent, someDateTimeItem) > > > > rather than a mulitiplicity of > > get-somethingInteresting-from-gHorribleKludge() functions. > > > > So, would it be possible to replace the panoply of component > > extraction > > functions with, for example, > > > > extract(month, myItemName) > > > > the first argument being all legal components (seconds, > > minutes, timezone > > etc) and the second argument being simply an item name (not > > even requiring a > > coder to master all the gHorribleKludge types), with the item > > having to be a > > date-time type? > > > > So I guess I am asking several questions: > > > > 1. Is there a good reason for having the multiplicity of > > dateTime component > > extraction functions as separate functions? > > 2. Is there a compelling technical reason why extract(month, > > myDateTimeItem) > > couldn't work or is perceived as technically inferior? > > 3. Depending on the answers to 1. and 2. is the WG willing to > > consider a more > > compact syntax requiring fewer date-time component extraction > > functions? > > > > I appreciate that we are now 5.5 months into the nominal "3 > > month" WD cycle, > > so I guess a new batch of WDs will arrive soon, so even if > > found worth > > exploring I accept that any acceptance of the idea won't be > > immediately > > expressed in a WD. > > > > I would be interested in the WG's comments. > > > > Andrew Watt > >
Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 05:13:16 UTC