W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2005

[Bug 1336] please make value comparison clearer

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 16:05:21 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Cc:
Message-Id: <E1DZA01-0001SG-3T@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1336


fsasaki@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID




------- Additional Comments From fsasaki@w3.org  2005-05-20 16:05 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> Yes, your example is now correct, and illustrates the point that you will indeed
> get different answers when testing the typed value of a node and when testing
> its string value. There are many other similar cases, for example if a node has
> type NMTOKENS, and has the string value "red green blue", then string(.)="red"
> will be false, while data(.)="red" will be true. 
> 
> I think you will find that XPath 2.0 tutorials, training courses, and textbooks
> spend some time explaining these concepts. The specification, of course, is not
> designed to be a tutorial.
> 
> Michael Kay (personal response).
> 
> 

Of course the spec is not a tutorial, but there are many "notes" in specs. To my
understanding one purpose of the notes is to clarify concepts which are well
defined even without the note. The clarification might be helpful to reach a
wider audience, not only of users, but also of implementers of XML-aware i18n
tools. But you are right, that is not the main purpose of the spec, so I'll
leave it to you / the WG how you will deal with that comment.

Felix Sasaki (personal remark)
Received on Friday, 20 May 2005 16:06:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:05 UTC