- From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 07:26:35 -0800 (PST)
- To: Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org>
- Cc: Don Chamberlin <chamberl@almaden.ibm.com>, public-qt-comments@w3.org
Thank you, Jim, I'll watch this space. Best regards, Dimitre Novatchev. --- Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org> wrote: > Dimitre, > > This is a personal response, and has not been seen, much less approved, > by > the Query WG. > > The Query WG is considering some proposed changes to the facilities > related > to "unordered" in XQuery/XPath. It's too soon to tell precisely what > outcome will result, but I feel personally confident that the situation > will not remain as it is. The results might be more favorable to you > than > the current situation. > > Watch this space! > Jim > > At 02:45 PM 3/4/2004 Thursday, Dimitre Novatchev wrote: > > > > (IBM-FO-037): Section 15.1.14 (fn:unordered): The summary begins > "This > > > function takes a sequence, or more typically, an expression that > > > evaluates to a sequence ...". This implies that a "sequence" is > somehow > > > different from "an expression that evaluates to a sequence." > Actually > > > there is no difference. The phrase beginning "or more typically" > should > > > be deleted. > > > >I commented about the lack of meaning of this definition. If they > remove > >the phrase "or more typically, an expression that evaluates to a > >sequence", then this whole function becomes useless to them. Their idea > is > >that the argument *must* be an expression, which is not yet evaluated. > The > >fact that such an expression is passed as argument to fn:unordered will > >tell the processor (!) that it is allowed not to preserve order and to > >produce an unordered result... > > > >The purely formal problem with this function definition is that there > is > >no "expression" data type in the DM, therefore, they can only explain > it > >in plain English... > > > >Of course, this is absolutely incorrect! > > > >I propose once again that this function definition be removed from the > >document. All other arguments put aside, the mere failure of the > attempt > >to define it correctly is a very strong indicator that this is simply > not > >a function. > > > >Dimitre Novatchev. > > > > > >__________________________________ > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster > >http://search.yahoo.com > > ======================================================================== > Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL) Phone: +1.801.942.0144 > Oracle Corporation Oracle Email: jim dot melton at oracle dot com > 1930 Viscounti Drive Standards email: jim dot melton at acm dot org > Sandy, UT 84093-1063 Personal email: jim at melton dot name > USA Fax : +1.801.942.3345 > ======================================================================== > = Facts are facts. However, any opinions expressed are the opinions = > = only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of anybody = > = else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues at hand. = > ======================================================================== > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
Received on Friday, 5 March 2004 10:27:07 UTC