- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:53:28 +0000
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Michael Kifer wrote: > I made a proposal that we should treat builtins using the same mechanism as > modules. For instance, if a builtin is defined in the XQuery/XPath library > then we would refer to it as > > fn:dateTime(...)@http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions > > where fn is a prefix for http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions Isn't the URI enough to avoid clashes? What benefit does a module system offer in this case? [I realize the benefit of a module system for scoping but for a module consisting of entirely global builtins that doesn't apply. Runtime implementations might use modules to load/unload implementation libraries but that has nothing to do with RIF.] Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 16 November 2007 08:53:46 UTC