- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:21:00 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Jun 11, 2006, at 2:40 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > While these changes aren't huge, they are substantive in that they > require people to change their code. So another last call will > be in order. Say 3 to 4 to 6 weeks. Then (presuming the XQuery > dependency and such are satisfied...) we should have enough materials > for a successful request for PR; I don't > think we need another CR for things like where the commas go. > > That's my suggestion. I wonder if it makes sense to anybody else... > Kendall? Hmm, sorry to have missed this thread first time-around... Yeah, that does make sense. I *guess* there may be other changes of that same magnitude (not trivial, but not earth-shaking) that may happen still... There are several substantive outstanding comments still unaddressed, including a lot of pending comments from Oracle. I'm not assuming that *no* changes will result from any of that. The stuff about formal semantics especially seems problematic in that regard. As for the process you outline, I think it sounds reasonable, though obviously I'm still pretty weak re: W3C process details. > I'm also inclined to add the commas in the SELECT syntax. > I personally type it that way all the time. That in itself > isn't new information... I'm not sure if the future consideration > of expressions in select is new information or not... but > then there's the addition of ORDER BY to the language... none > of those by themselves was enough to get us to reconsider, but > putting them altogether looks like a pretty good case, to me. I agree, both about the cumulative effect, and about the way I type it when I write queries like that. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Sunday, 18 June 2006 20:21:21 UTC