- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:51:00 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10089
--- Comment #5 from dnovatchev@gmail.com 2010-07-06 17:50:59 ---
> > The missing functions are among the *most important* XPath functions. They
> > represent a significant hole in the current document.
> They are also among the most trivial functions to define outside the specs as
> well:
> function($a, $b) { $a lt $b }
The criterion whether something should be in the spec is not if it is not
trivial to define. The criterion is how *important* that thing is.
Never leave fundamental concepts out of the spec.
> > EXPath's goal is to provide useful *extensions* to existing specifications.
> > This is not the case. In this case the specification needs to be fixed, not
> > "extended".
> Let's be clear - we're talking about syntactic sugar here, not a broken spec.
This statement is false. It is not "syntactic sugar" that HOF -- one of the
most important features of XPath -- is not applicable to the most fundamental
functions of the language.
It should be obvious that defining a function in the spec does not require any
changes in the syntax of the language.
Dimitre Novatchev.
--
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, 6 July 2010 17:51:02 UTC