- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:26:36 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2262
davidc@nag.co.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED
------- Additional Comments From davidc@nag.co.uk 2005-09-29 10:26 -------
> we doubt seriously that any XQueryX generator will
> be written in such a way that it dynamically changes its style
I'm seriously tempted to prove you wrong the WG wrong. I have an XQX generator
(that can produce schema-valid instances from all the xquery test suite).
Currently it always uses functioncall, and always uses xqx:arguments but it
would only be a moment's job to change it to alternate between the two choices.
As you may guess, I think the decision is harmful to xqueryx and in the end this
(and similar decisions on functioncall etc) will mean that there will have to be
a profile "canonical xqueryx" with a tighter schema that removes all these choices.
However it's clear that
a) I haven't persuaded the WG that as a general principle, having multiple
encoding forms is bad,
and
b) Given a, there is no point in arguing the same issue in multiple bugzilla
threads on individual items where the disagreement stems from this basically
different strategic view.
so on this issue (and similar ones) I propose that I state disagreement in
textual form in the comment, but I do _not_ raise objections in the sense of the
W3C process, and I close the reports.
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2005 10:26:41 UTC