> Hi Erik,
>
> Thank you for merging in my changes so quickly (this definitely
> stimulates me to do more fixes ;), I will try to work a bit on
> Orbeon/test framework tomorrow evening).
>
> I will send an e-mail explaining the options for seconds-from-dateTime
> and seconds-to-dateTime to the WG mailing list.
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 20:45, Erik Bruchez [via Orbeon Forms
> (ops-users)] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> You're correct that makes much more sense in XPath 2.0 and doesn't
>>> breaks the test case. I've changed it to an empty sequence, and merged
>>> it to my master branch
>>>
>>>
>>> (http://github.com/nvdbleek/orbeon-forms/commit/7afab1ac32c5aa1b98a2b73366cc4cab6114807e).
>>
>> Cool I merged that in, as well as your change for the optional
>> digest() parameter.
>>
>>> I always thought seconds-from-dateTime returned an integer when the
>>> input was valid, but the test suite has a case that tests with
>>> '1970-01-01T00:00:00.001Z, and expects 0.001. I'm not sure why you
>>> would ever need the fractional part in a form, and you can run into
>>> rounding errors... Maybe we should bring this to the WG groups
>>> attention (I was to focussed on making the test suite tests working).
>>> Do you think it is worth sending an e-mail to the WG list?
>>
>> I guess one question for the group is whether for
>> seconds-from-dateTime(), the types should be different when using
>> XPath 1.0 vs. 2.0 instead of just mapping exactly to the closest XPath
>> 1.0 type.
>>
>> In the work you have done here:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XPath_2.0
>>
>> the function are defined as:
>>
>> xs:integer seconds-from-dateTime(xs:string)
>> xs:string seconds-to-dateTime(numeric)
>>
>> I suppose that an XPath 2.0 signature would look more like:
>>
>> xs:decimal seconds-from-dateTime(xs:dateTime)
>> xs:dateTime seconds-to-dateTime(xs:numeric)
>>
>> Since we introduce an XPath version number specified so that the
>> XForms engine can put itself in XPath 1.0 compatibility mode, we could
>> say that XForms functions return types matching the XForms 1.1 types
>> if xpath-version="1.0". Otherwise, the XPath 2.0-compatible signatures
>> are used. Migrating an XPath 1.0 form to XPath 2.0 will likely require
>> some changes to a form anyway.
>>
>> Bottom line is that yes, this would be best discussed by the XForms
>> working group. Do you want to send an email with some of what we
>> discussed above? Feel free to copy/paste if needed.
>>
>> -Erik
>>
>>
>> --
>> You receive this message as a subscriber of the [hidden email] mailing
>> list.
>> To unsubscribe: mailto:[hidden email]
>> For general help: mailto:[hidden email]?subject=help
>> OW2 mailing lists service home page: http://www.ow2.org/wws
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> View message @
>>
>> http://n4.nabble.com/XForms-W3C-suite-and-XPath-Functions-in-Orbeon-tp1012497p1053815.html
>> To start a new topic under ObjectWeb OPS - Users, email
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from ObjectWeb OPS - Users, click here.
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Nick Van den Bleeken
>
> ________________________________
> View this message in context: Re: Re: XForms W3C suite and XPath Functions
> in Orbeon
> Sent from the ObjectWeb OPS - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> --
> You receive this message as a subscriber of the [hidden email] mailing
> list.
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[hidden email]
> For general help: mailto:[hidden email]?subject=help
> OW2 mailing lists service home page: http://www.ow2.org/wws
>
>