Subject: RE: [xsl] Can sets have order? From: Wolfgang May <may@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:19:45 +0100 (MET) |
Dimitre Novatchev writes: > I find this an illustrative example of how one should not start and > continue an argument. > > I believe this is sufficient for everyone to draw conclusions... That quoting with reducing contexts to nearly nothing is not always ... ... useful? > Originally Wolfgang May wrote: > > > ... Such nodes may be exchanged in the node set without > > changing the behavior of any XPath query. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > Now Wolfgang May writes: > > > These all are *relative* expressions - so these queries use the > > _premise_ the nodes can be distinguished to show that they can be > > distinguished. > > > > For all (absolute) queries on the document > > > > //path/one-of-the-above-expressions > > > > there is no difference if the nodes are exchanged. Very simple: When *querying* a document, you *have* to start with the root node (formally spoken, an AbsoluteLocationPath (XPath spec, rule [2])) -- or how else would you obtain access to a specific node for starting your expression? Thus the "(absolute)" was meant to emphasize this fact. Wolfgang XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Can sets have order?, Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | [xsl] Function position(), Partho Paul |
RE: [xsl] Can sets have order?, Dimitre Novatchev | Date | RE: [xsl] Incrementation i=i+1, Michael Kay |
Month |