W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > September 2016

[Bug 29819] [XSLT30] (editorial) Core functions

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:50:37 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-29819-523-cfQAnQQDzd@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:58:02 UTC