Subject: Re: [xsl] Can sets have order? From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:30:40 -0700 |
Hmm. I can't help thinking about it. I think I'm about to undermine my own argument. ancestor::* returns a node set with a definite order, and what I've been arguing as an intrinsic order. I challenged David about XPath's lack of an "order" function if node sets did not have an intrinsic order. But probably it's not so simple. What about ancestor::* | /parent::* Since XPath doesn't say anything about the order of the result of a union expression, I guess David is probably right about node sets as well. I could say that the fact that nothing is said about this simply means that the intrinsic order is maintained, but perhaps that would just be stubbornness. Oh well. I must admit that even while implementing them, I had never even vaguely thought of node sets as being unordered. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Can sets have order?, David Carlisle | Thread | RE: [xsl] the nearest ancestor with, DPawson |
RE: [xsl] dynamic font, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] xsl sort, Michael Kay |
Month |