Subject: Re: [xsl] Looking for a shorter mapping expression From: Dimtre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 20:30:16 +1100 |
On 06 Dec 2004 08:39:10 +0000, Colin Paul Adams <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> "Dimtre" == Dimtre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Dimtre> Even the last E2 in a path expression should evaluate > Dimtre> either to a sequence of nodes or a sequence of atomic > Dimtre> values, but not a mixture of the two... I find this > Dimtre> unreasonably restrictive > > Is it really so restrictive in practise? > > Given that E1 must be a node sequence, then even if the restriction > were not there, you would still only be gaining functions of type > > [a] -> [a|b] > > where a is node() and b is atomic(). Colin, by "unreasonably restrictive" I mean that the reason for its being restrictive is not known. Cheers, Dimitre. > > Is that so useful? > -- > > > Colin Paul Adams > Preston Lancashire
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Looking for a shorter map, Colin Paul Adams | Thread | RE: [xsl] Looking for a shorter map, Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] Looking for a shorter map, Dimtre Novatchev | Date | Re: [xsl] Creating nested output fr, David Carlisle |
Month |