[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: W3C Specification of fn:filter() -- is this a bug

Subject: Re: W3C Specification of fn:filter() -- is this a bug in the document or in Saxon?
From: "Dimitre Novatchev dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 01:00:54 -0000
Re:  W3C Specification of fn:filter() -- is this a bug
Because we are discussing "quality of work" in this thread (among other
things), here is a question:

Can anyone provide new tests to be added to the test suites? If so, how to
do this? Where is this described?


On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 5:31 PM Michael Kay mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx <
xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 12 Sep 2019, at 00:04, Liam R. E. Quin liam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <
> xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 22:03 +0000, Dimitre Novatchev
> dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Why on
> earth did they provide **this** implementation and not something
> better
> Two plausible reasons - the person who wrote it did so before some of
> the other XPath 3 features had settled down or been agreed upon, or,
> they simply didnt attach much importance to it.
> Sadly, I am unable to research an answer to historical questions, because
> I no longer have member access to W3C's archives.
> The likely reason, though, will be a negative: the spec is the way it is
> because no-one (either within or outwith the WG) saw a problem with it.
> In my years of doing standards work I was always impressed by the quality
> of scrutiny that proposals were subjected to. It's far higher than the
> level I have ever experienced with internal product specifications in any
> company I have worked for. Sometimes, indeed, it could be frustrating that
> we spent entire meetings discussing arcane edge cases. The quest for
> perfection results in incredibly slow progress getting specs completed. But
> the process is not perfect, and the resulting specifications are not
> perfect either. The main reason for that is simply resources: the longer a
> standards group carries on, the harder it becomes to persuade people to
> commit their time to it.
> Frankly, if this is the biggest problem that people can find, then we did
> a remarkably good job.
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica
> XSL-List info and archive <http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list>
> EasyUnsubscribe <http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/xsl-list/782854> (by
> email <>)

Dimitre Novatchev
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
Never fight an inanimate object
To avoid situations in which you might make mistakes may be the
biggest mistake of all
Quality means doing it right when no one is looking.
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play
To achieve the impossible dream, try going to sleep.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
Typing monkeys will write all Shakespeare's works in 200yrs.Will they write
all patents, too? :)
Sanity is madness put to good use.
I finally figured out the only reason to be alive is to enjoy it.

Current Thread


Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.