- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:50:38 -0800
- To: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: <mary@cerisent.com>
Resending. Did not make it to the archive. All the best, Ashok -----Original Message----- From: Ashok Malhotra Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:33 PM To: 'mary@cerisent.com' Subject: RE: [F&O] CER-07 exactly-one et al Mary: Thanks for your comment. There has been a great deal of discussion over these functions and there is a significant section of the WG that really wants them. Unless you insist, I would rather not reopen this discussion. Is that OK? All the best, Ashok -----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 11:30 AM To: public-qt-comments@w3.org Subject: [F&O] CER-07 exactly-one et al F&O 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3 The functions fn:zero-or-one, fn:one-or-more, and fn:exactly-one can trivially be written as user functions and provide little benefit. Given widely useful functions such as value-union that are not being provided, there seems little justification to require these functions. Suggest they be removed.
Received on Monday, 29 March 2004 13:52:00 UTC