<!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>
The attached file is a word document and contains the generalized supported signatures for all functions.<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 17:05:47 2007<BR>
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted<BR>
<BR>
No comments on technical implementation, but this RFC makes me happy :)<BR>
<BR>
SQL Server?<BR>
<BR>
What format is the attached .doc in?<BR>
<BR>
It would be important to know exactly what behaviour is expected from these functions; would it be possible to add their signatures, examples, and expected results to the RFC? For instance, I'd like to see better documentation of the differences between Mod and Remainder. If they are envisioned as functions of the same name from a particular RDBMS or programming language, then a reference to the documentation for that source would be good. It would also allow us to determine if there are any functions which might require modified signatures to support additional information that might be required to implemented the functions in other providers (such as PostGIS).<BR>
<BR>
Jason<BR>
<BR>
_____ <BR>
<BR>
From: Thomas Knoell<BR>
Subject: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted<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>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>