- From: Mary Fernandez <mff@research.att.com>
- Date: 17 May 2004 18:34:37 -0400
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org, plucas@bea.com
> This is a request for the rationale as to why the quantifiers > for "()" and "none" changed between Aug 2002 and May 2003. In > Aug 2002: > > quantifier(()) = 0 > quantifier(none) = 0 > > In May 2003, this changed to: > > quantifier(()) = ? > quantifier(none) = 1 > > Why? The current version seems rather odd. Why should > quantifier(none) be 1? > > - Paul > BEA Systems, Inc. A little detective work indicates that this has been the definition since May 2003: http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-semantics/#jd_prime http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xquery-semantics-20030822/#jd_prime http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xquery-semantics-20030502/#sec_factor Returning to Nov 2002, we see the old definition: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-query-semantics-20021115/#jd_prime which was unnecessarily complex. First, there is no '0' quantifier in the language, only ?, 1, *, +. Plus all the entries in the table for combining the 0 quantifier are redundant (e.g., () . 0 = () = () . 1), so we can just get rid of 0 quantifiers entirely. Make sense? -- Mary Fernandez <mff@research.att.com> AT&T Labs - Research
Received on Monday, 17 May 2004 18:34:58 UTC