9758 2010-05-18 07:05:59 +0000 Group By Clause: Equivalence: GroupingSpec 2010-06-22 18:05:17 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XQuery 3.0 Working drafts All All CLOSED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 jmdyck jonathan.robie mike public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 35739 0 jmdyck 2010-05-18 07:05:59 +0000 [Reiterates part of point #2 from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-query/2009Nov/0075.html (Members only)] Re the definition of "equivalence of two atomic values"... In a definition whose "parameters" appear to be merely two values, it's odd to have one of the rules suddenly talk about a GroupingSpec. And while it could maybe slide by if 'equivalence' were only used for 'group by', it's now used by Switch too, so talk of GroupingSpec makes no sense. I tried to find a solution involving just changes of wording, but it was ugly. (The problem is that a GroupingSpec might or might not specify a collation, and a Switch never specifies a collation.) So I think we should turn equivalence into an actual pseudo-function, with a third parameter, C, which is an optional collation. 35918 1 mike 2010-06-02 22:30:10 +0000 Note that the proposal for resolution of bug #9757 deletes the definition of "equivalence of two atomic values", which would solve this bug at the same time. 36341 2 jonathan.robie 2010-06-22 16:47:12 +0000 This was resolved as a side effect of our resolution of bug #9757. 36346 3 jmdyck 2010-06-22 18:05:17 +0000 Agreed.