W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > November 2006

[Bug 3618] [FT] let score clause

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:05:25 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Gfg0L-0006Jd-Rx@wiggum.w3.org>


------- Comment #6 from davidc@nag.co.uk  2006-11-02 17:05 -------
Thanks for the clarification. I pushed back on the word "position" as it was
only originally introduced with respect to comparing a possible score()
function with the existing position() function, but anyway I think we all
understand each other now, so I'll let that drop.

Since I re-opened the report I suppose I should state how I think it could be

Possibly unwisely my original report raised two interconnected issues.

1) asking for an editorial clarification on the description of the differences
between the two variants of let score clause (with or without the main let

The WG resolved that by removing one of the forms, which wasn't the resolution
I expected, but that's fine by me.

2) Asking for a score syntax (possibly but not necessarily a score function)
usable in XPath (including the XPath subset of XQuery, but especially usable in
non-xquery contexts).

My (currently) preferred solution to this second point would have been to add a
score() function, but as I indicated in the original comment, I didn't expect
that the WGs would really want to make such a large change at this point, so a
fallback position was to add the let score clause to XPath (as extended by full
text) once the definition of let score had been clarified as requested in the
first part of the comment.

My understanding of the WG position is that they have resolved point 1, but
decided to take no action on point 2. As such I think that FIXED is an
incorrect state for the report and it should be WONTFIX or (preferably) LATER.

Received on Thursday, 2 November 2006 17:05:37 UTC

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