Re: rq25.xml String functions definitions - first shot (ACTION-350)

On 2010-12-20, at 18:37, Axel Polleres wrote:

> This discharges ACTION-350: Draft some input for the function library section
> I did a first shot drafting the string functions definitions (see below). 
> Andy will integrate it with one of the next batches of edits into rq25.xml
> It would be great if some other people would also get involved, e.g. 
> drafting numeric, date/time, and hash functions.
> ****Please *ALL* take this as a call for volunteers!****
> In this particular case, I tried to 
> i) follow the setup Andy defined in
> (plus discussion)
> and 
> ii) taking into account my interpretation of the outcomes of the discussion in
> Smaller things I wasn't sure about, and which we may collect opinions on: 
> 1) in the ENCODE function, I wasn't sure what I should do with this note, I left it marked as "todo": 
>           <p>Same as javascript encodeURIComponent : fn:encode-for-uri</p>
>  (Andy mentioned Steve had preferred it to be ENCODE_FOR_URI due the jaavscript community's
>   experience with confusion over names...)

The problem is that there are two different URI encoding functions, in early Javascript one was arbitrarily was called encode(), and the other wasn't available. We're in danger of repeating that mistake.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD

Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2010 11:20:46 UTC