1290 2005-05-03 12:55:44 +0000 infixOp 2005-06-02 19:54:11 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XQueryX 1.0 Last Call drafts PC Windows 2000 CLOSED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 davidc jim.melton holstege public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 3592 0 davidc 2005-05-03 12:55:45 +0000 Issue: xqueryx-operator-syntax, priority: 3, status: open This issue asks for comments on the <xqx;[sic]infixOp/> <xqx;[sic]opType>+</xqx:opType> syntax. Unless I missed something the syntax could be improved by simply dropping all mention of infixOp. All operators are infix apart from unary plus and minus aren't they? The stylesheet already has to special case unary +/- to use "+" or "-" symbols, so it could special case them to be non-infix at the same time. It isn't clear to me that an xqueryx document needs to record the infix nature of an operation which is part of the concrete syntx of xquery not part of the logical expression tree. David 3453 1 jim.melton 2005-05-11 00:41:46 +0000 Thanks for your comment. This subject has been discussed by the WGs previously, but your comment causes us to reconsider the issue. When a decision has been made, we will provide a further response. 3387 2 jim.melton 2005-05-11 19:47:18 +0000 The XML Query Working Group has considered this comment and agrees with it. The WG has decided to eliminate the <infixOp/> element from the XQueryX schema and from the examples. Please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision. 3389 3 davidc 2005-05-11 22:44:38 +0000 I agree with you agreeing to my comment I'm closing the comment as requested. 3003 4 jim.melton 2005-06-02 19:54:11 +0000 *** Bug 1402 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***