- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:06:33 -0000
- To: "'Michael Rys'" <mrys@microsoft.com>, "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
> Dear Sandro > > Why can't you use the XPath operator instead? Like *? > > That would allow you to be interoperable with XPath 2.0 > implementations, many of which will not use the operator > functions as described in the spec for implementation purposes. > > Best regards > Michael Like Michael Rys, I'm reluctant to do anything that would encourage the belief that the op: functions are intended to be implemented and made available in a public interface. Apart from anything else, this would be difficult because they are polymorphic. The style of specification that we adopted, that is, defining language operators in terms of these notional functions, has unfortunately led to a lot of confusion of this kind. We need to bury these functions more deeply rather than raising them to the surface. Perhaps it would be useful if the RIF Working Group could explain the actual requirement rather than the perceived solution. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2008 09:07:00 UTC