Re: TMQL, next round

* Robert Barta wrote:
>
> Well, there is no _strict_ dependency, but I would find it somewhat
> sleazy to offer a data type, but not the functions related with it.

There is no "the set of functions" associated with any particular  
datatype, which I think is what's underlying the other Lars's point.

> So with xsd:string would come
>
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#string-functions

I think we could usefully cut this down to what XPath 1.0 had. We've  
used that function set as predicates in tolog, and it's worked very  
well for us. It also worked very well for XPath/XSLT.

> Of course, we can also say that this 'implementation', but then
> compatibility is rather weak, not? And the standard is all about
> compatibility....

Yes. So we have to balance compatibility of implementations against  
complexity of implementations. If we lean too far over toward  
complexity we get no implementations at all, and so theoretical  
compatibility is no gain. :)

--Lars M.