- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:29:34 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16744 --- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2012-06-19 13:29:33 UTC --- One possible reason is that if collection-available() has parallel semantics with the other functions, it could be quite expensive: it has to determine not only that a collection with the required name exists, but that it can be read in its entirety without error. Given that many operations on collections are likely to filter the collection, which might mean that some errors go undetected, the operation could be expensive. But I agree that's not a strong justification. There is however a process argument against adding it now: the time for adding new features to the current 3.0 version of the spec is past. -- Configure bugmail: https://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, 19 June 2012 13:29:40 UTC