- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:48:54 +0100
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 01:25:36PM +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >>The next complexity level would be to number the variable declarations in > >>the header indicating the order of the variables but that does not make > >>sense for function ordering. So, just an indication in the <results> > >>element seems fine, if anything at all. > > > > > >Why optional? order="false" seems pretty reasonable, and optional > >things just make processing harder. > > Simplest would be to put in nothing - currently, ARQ preserves ordering > when reading regardless, preserves ordering when writing regardless and > does not indictae it in the XML produced. It's streamed (well, nearly so - > I need to switch to StAX from SAX. Or have a callback API (no!). Details, > details) and that is important for XML result set usage IMHO. > > If it (order="") is mandatory, we also need a "don't know" value. I dont understadn why you would ommit it, having something like that be optional makes it pretty useless, if clients cant depend on it, why would they support it? - Steve
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2005 12:49:27 UTC