- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:07:29 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2262 ------- Additional Comments From davidc@nag.co.uk 2005-09-26 23:07 ------- Leaving this one not-closed, although I haven't(yet) taken the formal step of re-opening it. The change you have made means that there are two equivalent ways to encode every 0-ary function, you can have either no xqx:arguments child, or an empty xqx:arguments. There is no semantic difference that is being encoded here, so why allow both forms? I think it would be much better to either force xqx:arguments to be present (my original suggestion) or to allow it to be empty but to change its type to a non-empty list. (I have no preference between these two alternatives) David
Received on Monday, 26 September 2005 23:07:34 UTC