Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Doing my due diligence first by looking whether this has already been
discussed previously, I found this issue:
https://github.com/qt4cg/qtspecs/issues/35
I'm tempted to hijack it, attach a label 'editorial' to it and propose some cross-linking and name-dropping -- that is, mentioning union, interesect, , (comma operator) etc. in the F&O introduction, in a new section or in an appendix and pointing to the XPath spec. I understand that deep links into other specs aren't current practice in these specs. If we keep this practice, we should at least mention the terms to search for in the other spec. Contrary to what Christian said in a comment in the issue mentioned above, these specs, in particular F&O, are consulted not only by implementors but also by regular XQuery and XSLT developers, as illustrated by Eliot's initial question. Ok, Christian said that only implementors read the specs *in detail*, which is probably true. Therefore it is so important that the impatient XSLT/XQuery programmer find the keywords they are looking for in the F&O spec, which I, too, turn to more frequently than to the XPath spec proper. Now the question still lingers: Hijack #35 or open a new one? Also relevant in this context: https://github.com/qt4cg/qtspecs/issues/30 Gerrit On 09.08.2022 08:33, Norm Tovey-Walsh ndw@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: I suggest that[...]
|
