- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 16:21:51 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24207 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Component|XPath 3.1 |Requirements for Future | |Versions Resolution|--- |LATER Assignee|jonathan.robie@gmail.com |jim.melton@acm.org --- Comment #5 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> --- The XSLT and XML Query working groups discussed this issue during a joint teleconference today. There was some sentiment that in a more purely and completely functional language, one might well wish to eliminate this and other places where special-purpose syntax can do things that cannot be done in functions. The historically conditioned role of XPath in relation to its host languages, however, means that the 3.0/3.1 versions of our specifications are not such a language. After some discussion, the working groups decided to resolve the issue as LATER. There was some dissent from this: some working-group members did not agree that this would ever be a useful idea and would prefer to resolve it in some other way (not clear whether they preferred INVALID, WONTFIX, or WORKSFORME). In the course of the discussion, some members of the working groups argued strongly against the view that the doc() function is parallel to the constructors proposed here: doc() is not described as creating nodes, but as returning nodes which already exist in the dynamic context. Some participants in the discussion regarded this as a distinction without a difference, and there were mentions of angels and heads of pins; for other participants the distinction does make a difference. Tony, in your role as originator of the issue, we ask you to close the issue to indicate your willingness to accept this resolution of the issue, or to re-open it to indicate unwillingness to accept it. If we don't hear from you before two or three weeks have passed, we will assume that your silence indicates assent. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 16:21:58 UTC