Re: F+O spec : function finder

> Yes. What you can't then do is say, "This collection of functions,
> modified slightly by what I implemented, forms the basis of the
> BenitoQuery language" because (1) that would hurt interoperability, and
> (2) there may be companies who have patents in this are that accepted
> that XQuery implementations did not have to pay royalties to them, but
> if you implement another language all bets are off. But you're not
> making a new specification, you're documenting your implmentation. It's
> good.

Interesting. I guess that means that if W3C decides not to produce an XQuery 4, and some new WhyWG starts up to do the job itself, then it has to get W3C agreement first?

I somehow thought it was more open than that.

Michael Kay

Received on Saturday, 3 December 2016 21:20:02 UTC