- From: Pat Case <pcase@crs.loc.gov>
- Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:30:04 -0500
- To: <noe_michejda@7thportal.pl>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Noe, The XML Query and XSL Working Groups discussed and decided to adopt your suggestion to eliminate the get- prefix on the functions you cited. Discussion is continuing on the other two issues you raised. Those decisions will be sent separately. Pat Case, U.S. Library of Congress >>> "Noe Michejda" <noe_michejda@7thportal.pl> 11/01/03 10:16 AM >>> There are few function in spec with 'get-' prefix: get-local-name-from-QName get-namespace-from-QName get-namespace-uri-for-prefix get-in-scope-namespaces get-xxx-from-xxx does the prefix carries some meaning? Normally they are used for getter/setter pairs, but in core all functions are side-effect free. So why using longer and harder to remember names? Accessors are very similar set of functions but aren't using 'get-' prefix. For example get-local-name-from-QName should be analogous to local-name($n as node) Also hour/minute/second extractors should use singular forms. They are extracting named fields. SQL and most programming libraries already uses singular forms. I propose to change those names to: local-name-from-QName namespace-from-QName namespace-for-prefix in-scope-namespaces hour-from-XXX minute-from-XXX second-from-XXX day-from-XXX month-from-XXX year-from-XXX I think expression //visit[hour-from-time(@time)=12] looks more natural that //visit[get-hours-from-time(@time)=12] Second thing is doc() vs document() what is the rationale behind having two so similar functions? Especialy if you are trying to cut down function number. It could be very confusing for users using different languages Plus all functionality is available through another core functions so there is no extra work for implementators. Possibly it would be better to drop document(), but its not possible (compatiblility). So why not leave just document()? Regards, Noe Michejda 7th Portal S.C.
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2003 22:53:23 UTC