RE: [F&O] 15.2.1 fn:deep-equal

> I can live with this result, this function
> (like so many others in XPath2, regrettably) will just be part of the
> "excess bloat" that accounts for much of Xpath2.

The way to get this addressed is:

1. Request such functions to be cut (For this it is now too late)
2. Do not implement them so they get taken out during the CR phase.

I already did 1 (with little success for this function :-().

Best regards
Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Carlisle
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 2:31 AM
> To: ashokmalhotra@alum.mit.edu
> Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [F&O] 15.2.1 fn:deep-equal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > In fact, there has been a great deal of discussion about this
function
> > and on On 3-16-2004 we decided to accept Mike Kay's wording
contained
> > in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-query-
> operators/2004Jan/0005.html
> 
> This version preserves the feature that the presence of a comment or
PI
> affects the result (as explictly mentioned in a note).
> I find this rather regrettable and the function would be a lot more
> useful if adjacent text nodes in the sequence of element-or-text node
> children of elements or document nodes were merged. This is slightly
> verbose to write out as XPath but as the function is now being defined
> by prose text, that is less of an issue.
> 
> On the other hand, the function will so rarely be useful, as almost
> always you will need to write a specific equality function that
captures
> the information important in a particular context, that I do not think
> I wish to hold up the process by formally objecting to this resolution
> of my last call comment. I can live with this result, this function
> (like so many others in XPath2, regrettably) will just be part of the
> "excess bloat" that accounts for much of Xpath2.
> 
> > Please look at the next draft of the F&O and tell us if you are
> > satisfied with the result.
> 
> "satisfied" is putting it too strongly:-) but I don't formally object.
> However if the definition could be modified so that adjacent text
nodes
> are merged, that would be an improvement, I think.
> 
> Thanks for your consideration of my comments,
> 
> David
> 
>
________________________________________________________________________
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk
>
________________________________________________________________________

Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2004 11:27:39 UTC