agreed. i personally can't think of a reason why we would want to
maintain a [partial] copy in XACML.
b
On May 31, 2007, at 6:33 AM, Anne Anderson - Sun Microsystems wrote:
> I recommend referring to the now-approved XPath and XQuery
> standards. Referencing the standard means people can re-use
> standard implementations of the XPath and XQuery functions with
> confidence. It also makes our own specification simpler and less
> prone to introduced errors.
>
> Regards,
> Anne
>
> Erik Rissanen wrote:
>> All,
>> For the next 3.0 core draft I was planning to incorporate all the 2.0
>> errata. Most of it concerns the definition of some data types and
>> functions copied from xpath/xquery.
>> The copying was made to accommodate ITU since xpath/xquery was not
>> approved at the time. Anne raised the issue earlier about going
>> back to
>> referring to the xpath/xquery, rather than copying text, now that
>> they
>> have been approved.
>> What should I do it for the next 3.0 draft? Should I copy text
>> like the
>> current 2.0 errata, or should I refer to the approved version of
>> xpath/xquery?
>> What should I do for future 2.0 errata? Should I keep the copied
>> text,
>> or should we revert back to referring to xpath/xquery?
>> Regards,
>> Erik
>
> --
> Anne H. Anderson Email:
> Sun Microsystems Laboratories
> 1 Network Drive,UBUR02-311 Tel: 781/442-0928
> Burlington, MA 01803-0902 USA Fax: 781/442-1692
