- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 22:32:07 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1314 ------- Additional Comments From mike@saxonica.com 2005-05-09 22:32 ------- I actually attempted to implement the previous specification of distinct-values, when non-comparable values were considered an error, and I found it very difficult to achieve; I found the current specification much easier to implement (my implementation is based on hashing using a simple hash function based on both the value and the type label). So let's base the argument on what's right for users, not on implementation factors, which are likely to vary from one implementor to another. >From a usability point of view, XML Schema supports union types, and the typed value of a collection of nodes can therefore contain a mixture of different atomic types. It seems to me a most unfriendly and unnecessary restriction to tell users that they can't invoke distinct-values() on a collection whose schema definition is a union type. Note also that although sorting in XQuery disallows mixed types, sorting and grouping in XSLT do not, so the consistency argument works both ways. Michael Kay
Received on Monday, 9 May 2005 22:32:11 UTC