RE: ORA-FO-STARTINGATZERO 15.1.6

Early November.

All the best, Ashok

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Brundage
> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 5:50 PM
> To: Ashok Malhotra; 'Kay, Michael'; stephen.buxton@oracle.com;
public-qt-
> comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: ORA-FO-STARTINGATZERO 15.1.6
> 
> 
> Roughly when is the next version of the document expected?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Michael Brundage
> xquery@comcast.net
> 
> Writing as
> Author, "XQuery: The XML Query Language" (Addison-Wesley, to appear
2003)
> Co-author, "Professional XML Databases" (Wrox Press, 2000)
> 
> not as
> Technical Lead
> Common Query Runtime/XML Query Processing
> WebData XML Team
> Microsoft
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 2:56 PM
> To: Kay, Michael; stephen.buxton@oracle.com; public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: ORA-FO-STARTINGATZERO 15.1.6
> 
> 
> The WGs discussed these comments in the meeting on 9/16/2003 and
decided
> to
> remove the function fn:item-at.
> This change will appear in the next version of the document.
> All the best, Ashok
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kay, Michael
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:44 PM
> To: Stephen Buxton; public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: ORA-FO-STARTINGATZERO 15.1.6
> I agree and would go further.
> 
> If we are to keep item-at($x, $n) then it should have the same
behavior as
> $x[$n].
> 
> And if it has the same behavior, then we might as well drop it.
> 
> Michael Kay
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Buxton [mailto:stephen.buxton@oracle.com]
> Sent: 30 June 2003 15:28
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: ORA-FO-STARTINGATZERO 15.1.6
> Functions and Operators, Section 15.1.6
> "If the value of $posParam is ... equal to zero (0), then an error is
> raised
> ".
> This is inconsistent with the way the substring functions work.
> Suggest: each of the string functions should define what they do with
zero
> and negative values for position and length, and they should be
> consistent.
> 
> 
> All the best, Ashok
>

Received on Monday, 22 September 2003 07:45:26 UTC