<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.0.6619.12">
<TITLE>Re: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hi Jason<BR>
<BR>
I will see what I can do. I am just leaving for my vacation and have to get back to you on this next week (although being on vacation, I'll still try to answer mails). I hope it can wait until then.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks<BR>
<BR>
Thomas<BR>
<BR>
--------------------------<BR>
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org <fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org><BR>
To: FDO Internals Mail List <fdo-internals@lists.osgeo.org><BR>
Sent: Fri Aug 03 18:06:32 2007<BR>
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted<BR>
<BR>
Could you maybe outline those issues? <BR>
<BR>
It would be helpful if we could all have an idea of what is coming up and see how it fits together, rather than being fed RFCs / problems piecemeal.<BR>
<BR>
I was able to read the PDF version, btw, and it answers most of my questions. I still don't know what the difference between Mod and Remainder is though :)<BR>
<BR>
A couple functions raise questions for me<BR>
<BR>
- the date functions have month math operators, but none for other units?<BR>
- is there a common way of specifying code pages that all providers should understand? I don't know much about this area.<BR>
<BR>
Jason<BR>
<BR>
_____ <BR>
<BR>
From: fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org [<A HREF="mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org</A>] On Behalf Of Thomas Knoell<BR>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 14:53<BR>
To: fdo-internals@lists.osgeo.org<BR>
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
For the geometry functions, there are different issues to address which we thought is better suited to be outlined separately.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks<BR>
<BR>
Thomas<BR>
<BR>
--------------------------<BR>
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org <fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org><BR>
To: FDO Internals Mail List <fdo-internals@lists.osgeo.org><BR>
Sent: Fri Aug 03 17:45:04 2007<BR>
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted<BR>
<BR>
Is there any specific reason for that ?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Haris<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
From: fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org [<A HREF="mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org</A>] On Behalf Of Thomas Knoell<BR>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 11:40 PM<BR>
To: fdo-internals@lists.osgeo.org<BR>
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Spatial functions will be handled separately.<BR>
<BR>
--------------------------<BR>
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org <fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org><BR>
To: FDO Internals Mail List <fdo-internals@lists.osgeo.org><BR>
Sent: Fri Aug 03 17:35:42 2007<BR>
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted<BR>
<BR>
I’ve noticed there is no any Spatial Functions. What is a reason for that?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Thank you,<BR>
<BR>
Haris<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
From: fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org [<A HREF="mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org">mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org</A>] On Behalf Of Thomas Knoell<BR>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:35 PM<BR>
To: FDO Internals Mail List<BR>
Subject: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Hi,<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
A new RFC (<A HREF="http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc8">http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc8</A>) has been posted. The RFC addresses the enhancement of the FDO well known (expression) function list to include additional, commonly used functions.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Please review the RFC. Any comments/suggestions and questions are welcome. All feedback is expected by the end-of-day August 10th 2007. If no changes are required it is my intent to motion that a vote for the acceptance of the RFC be made and subsequently voted on by the PSC.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Thanks<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Thomas<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>