- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:17:27 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5332 ------- Comment #3 from john.snelson@oracle.com 2008-01-07 12:17 ------- "My eyes! The goggles, they do nothing!" etc, etc. I'm sure this is the tip of the iceberg, and many more horrible examples could be derived. I agree with Michael that this is a horrible rule to understand as a user, and nigh-on impossible to implement. I know for a fact that XQilla can't tell the difference between () and (()) when checking this rule. I think there are only two viable solutions to this problem: 1) Michael's updating / non-updating / neutral classification, along with a firming up of the rules for how these properties are derived. 2) Adopt the Scripting Extensions approach to updating expressions, and allow any non-updating expression to exist where an updating one is expected. This requires a definition of how certain expressions handle mixed updating / non-updating results, which we already understand reasonably well from SE. I'm pretty sure that the rules for (1) will be hard to describe, and I consider (2) to be the only philosophically sound solution, although it's obviously more disruptive.
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 12:17:30 UTC