Re: Issues recommended for closure

Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> writes:
> Could I ask for an agenda item to close the following issues with no
> action, for the reasons stated:

I propose we do this by email. Does anyone object to closing these
issues as described? If no one objects by Friday, I’ll assume we can
close them. If there’s any objection or a request for discussion of
them, I’ll put that on the agenda for 28 February.

> #45 - second parameter of fn:sum must be neutral element
>
> Rationale: this cannot be done while preserving compatibility, and the
> requirement is not strong enough to justify a new function.
>
> #60 - namespace-uri-for-prefix() no longer allows passing a string
>
> Rationale: the new coercion rules mean that a supplied string will be
> down-cast, so there is no compatibility issue - except possibly for
> the error code
>
> #112: allow $map?function() in place of map:function($map)
>
> Rationale: the original proposal introduced an ambiguity, and
> subsequent discussion on the issue did not converge on a proposal that
> might achieve consensus
>
> #147: terse syntax for map entries
>
> Rationale: the discussion showed no signs of converging on a proposal
> that might achieve consensus
>
> #260: array:index-of
>
> Rationale: the proposed function is essentially indistinguishable from array:index-where
>
>
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica


                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh
Saxonica