- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:44:37 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29470 --- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> --- Suggested specification outline: Rules for Polyfill functions A polyfill is a user-written function in a reserved namespace A polyfill SHOULD NOT be defined unless it implements a specification issued by the authority for that namespace A polyfill function MUST specify a value (yes or no) for the override-extension-function attribute [which is interpreted as override-vendor-function...] Something about having package scope... ?Allow xsl:original Notes Valid reasons for using a polyfill include: The vendor has not implemented the function (e.g. xs:dateTimeStamp) The vendor's implementation of the function is non-conformant The vendor's implementation of the function does not meet performance requirements The specification of the function leaves aspects implementation-dependent or -defined, and this causes interoperability problems (e.g. the vendor's implementation of normalize-unicode does not provide a required normalization form) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2016 08:44:46 UTC