- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:58:38 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1467 holstege@mathling.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Additional Comments From holstege@mathling.com 2005-07-21 20:58 ------- The working group considered this comment at its meeting today and decided not to accept it. A number of divergent reasons were given for not accepting these changes, including: For some of the specific cases, returning empty sequences instead of failing were regarded as unhelpful to users. Providing errors improves usability, it was felt, rather than undermining it. The consistency argument was not compelling, in that consistency with some functions would speak to one decision, and consistency with other functions would speak to the opposite decision. The spec has a whole range of functions and operators, some of which accept empty sequences and some of which don't, so full consistency is not achievable. For the "class B" functions, changing the semantics of well-settled and long- standing functions in the absense of a compelling argument to change is disruptive.
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2005 20:58:55 UTC