- From: Oliver Becker <obecker@informatik.hu-berlin.de>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:46:59 +0200 (MEST)
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> In my opinion, unordered() must remain a function, because it clearly mark
> the scope of the directive; that is, you know that all that is inside the
> parenthesis will be potentially returned in a random order.
But then, please, don't call it a function if it is not a function.
(Dimitre, help! ;-) )
Could it be a comprise to change the terminology to something else
("directive" or whatever) but leave the grammar as it is?
For example, node() looks like a functions, but it is not.
The same way unordered(..) would look like a function, but it is in
reality something very different.
Oliver
/-------------------------------------------------------------------\
| ob|do Dipl.Inf. Oliver Becker |
| --+-- E-Mail: obecker@informatik.hu-berlin.de |
| op|qo WWW: http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~obecker |
\-------------------------------------------------------------------/
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2003 11:47:00 UTC