- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:06:47 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10089 --- Comment #7 from dnovatchev@gmail.com 2010-07-13 16:06:43 --- (In reply to comment #6) > We might be willing to entertain a well-defined "set" data type, > and/or set operations, for a future version of XPath beyond 2.1, > as an enhancement request, with use-cases. > The Working Groups are not willing to entertain making the operators > available as functions. (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. What do you think you are really doing? Designing math:pi() while not having or() and and() ? I have never had any hopes for an immediate positive reaction, but now at least you are aware what big problems this document has. -- 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 16:06:52 UTC