- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:06:42 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6027
Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jonathan.robie@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com> 2008-09-23 16:06:41 ---
In practice, people are extending the language.
We originally offered option declarations
(http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#dt-option-declaration) and extension expressions
(http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#id-extension-expressions) for this purpose. My
memory is that we decided, at the time, not to add language to the spec
allowing people to extend the syntax in other ways, but other people seem to
remember differently, and I have not done the archaeology needed to be sure.
Obviously, these extensions themselves are not part of XQuery. We can't test
for syntactic extensions in our test suites without knowing what the extensions
are, which is just impractical.
I suspect the right answer may be to add language in the conformance section
requiring vendors to specify any syntactic extensions, and to very explicitly
warn vendors that the XQuery Working Group regards any such vendor extensions
as outside the scope of XQuery, and that we might well add to the XQuery
languages in ways that conflict with any extensions they make to the syntax.
We might also require a mode that does not accept any extensions.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 16:07:16 UTC