- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:49:59 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2259 ------- Additional Comments From jim.melton@acm.org 2005-09-20 11:49 ------- Thanks for the ongoing discussion; it is very helpful. However, I have to emphasize that there is absolutely no requirement or intent that the XQueryX specification support any form of tranformation *from* XQuery to *to* XQueryX. I say this now because of Mike's remark in which he said "Is it intended that the translation from XQuery to XQueryX...". The answer to that is pretty close to the SQL null value, because there is no intent that there *be* a translation from XQuery to XQueryX, so there cannot be an answer about whether the static context should come into play. Having said that, here is my personal (not terribly considered) thought: If the transformation from XQueryX to XQuery, using the XQueryX stylesheet, transforms both xqx:constructorFunctionExpr and xqx:functionCallExpr into identical XQuery syntax, then what harm is there? It would mean that XQueryX generators that know enough about their environment to generate xqx:constructorFunctionExpr are free to do so when appropriate, and everybody is free to generate xqx:functionCallExpr in either situation. Why is that a problem? Because some XQueryX generators don't have that context and thus need to make a decision about whether or not to use xqx:constructorFunctionExpr? The answer to such generators is that there is no requirement that that use xqx:constructorFunctionExpr, but that they may if they wish.
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2005 11:50:11 UTC