[Bug 10074] Missing operator definitions

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10074





--- Comment #4 from dnovatchev@gmail.com  2010-07-13 13:55:09 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> WG response:
> There are two questions here: 
> (a) there is a lack of editorial logic in having underpinning functions for
> some operators but not others. This is essentially an editorial issue, and at
> the moment we don't feel we have the resources to make improvements in this
> area.
> (b) should the op: functions be exposed as a public interface? The WG feeling
> on this is that if we had intended them as a public interface, we would have
> designed them differently, and we do not currently see a compelling need for
> user-visible functions at this level, especially as it is easy for a user to
> add a function as a wrapper around the operator.

(personal)

I am not satisfied with the decision. This leaves the new, HOF feature limited
and not too useful.

Thus there are significant gaps in the document, while at the same time there
are proposals for work on relatively minor, not so significant functions.

-- 
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, 13 July 2010 13:55:11 UTC