- From: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:43:33 -0700
- To: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect.com>
- Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Jonathan Robie wrote: > At 02:56 PM 9/16/2003, Per Bothner wrote: >> Pity. I think people will see the word "local" and assume it's a module >> facility. Not providing it may actually be confusing. > > > Can you think of a prefix name that would be less confusing? Well, I'm hoping you'll keep the prefix name "local", and consider my proposal for the next revision... >> If I implement my proposal as a Qexo-specific extension, do you think it >> likely I might get into trouble? > > I suspect it would not be conformant, because I can't think of a good > way to implement it as an XQuery extension. Since we haven't yet > defined conformance, there's no real answer to your question yet. Programs that make use of the extension won't be conformant of course - but I hope a revised standard won't make them conformant but meaning something different. -- --Per Bothner per@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 15:40:10 UTC