- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:22:55 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2262 ------- Additional Comments From jim.melton@acm.org 2005-09-29 09:22 ------- While it is true that there may be 2^n ways of encoding queries, the WG participants do not believe that there is any practical implications of that formula. Surely, any given XQueryX generator will have been written to choose only one of the two ways to express 0-ary functions and only one of the two ways to express 1-ary functions; we doubt seriously that any XQueryX generator will be written in such a way that it dynamically changes its style at each function invocation. Another, admittedly weaker, reason is that we are aware of XQueryX documents "in the wild" that have already used the 0-ary encoding published in the 2005-09-15 Working Draft. This reason, as weak as it may be, helped push the WG into the decision to be liberal in the case of 0-ary function encodings. Please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision. (P.S., We most certainly do not feel that this dialog is confrontational in any way. While it has taken on a more formal "feel", we think that it is wise to do so at this stage of processing so that the record is absolutely clear.)
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2005 09:23:05 UTC