- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:50:37 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29819 --- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> --- Any change here would require very great care. As far as I can see the definition of "core function" is consistent with the way the term is used (15 usages, some hyperlinked and some not). Whether it's still a useful concept is another question. We might attempt a classification of functions as follows: (a) functions in the fn namespace defined in F+O 3.0, or 3.1 if appropriate (b) functions in the math namespace defined in F+O 3.0 or 3.1 (there are no substantive differences between 3.0 or 3.1) (c) functions in the map namespace defined in XSLT 3.0 or F+O 3.1 (there are no substantive differences between the two specifications) (d) functions in the array namespace defined in F+O 3.1 (e) constructor functions in the xs namespace for data types defined in XSD 1.0 or XSD 1.1 (f) functions in the fn namespace defined in XSLT 3.0 (g) user-written stylesheet functions (h) extension functions and then, by means of a table, indicate which of these categories are available (i) in ordinary XPath expressions (and patterns), (ii) in static expressions, and (iii) within dynamic XPath expressions (xsl:evaluate). But I don't think the spec is broken as it stands, and any work in this area needs care to make sure it doesn't break anything. Perhaps it's a candidate for a non-normative appendix. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2016 12:50:45 UTC