- From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:44:05 -0800
- To: <mary@cerisent.com>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Why would such a function with completely implementation-defined semantics (what does it return? A sequence of items? Document-nodes? Element-nodes?) improve interoperability of the query? If you want interop, request that every implementation defines the implicit context to be a document or recommend that users bind data to a variable and use the same name... Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mary Holstege > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 11:26 AM > To: public-qt-comments@w3.org > Subject: [General] CER-03 Input sources > > > > [General] Input sources > > There should be a standard mechanism to obtain a vendor-specified "input > sequence". For document-oriented repositories this would be something > like a > list of all documents in the database so input()//foo[bar="x"] would apply > the > XPath to every document in the database. It could be a specially named > variable instead, but since doc() and collection() are functions, it'd be > more > consistent to use input(). Using a standard mechanism helps query > portability. > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 11:44:15 UTC