Subject: RE: [xsl] Unordered sequences in XPath 2.0 From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 10:13:57 +0100 |
Bob's article has miscopied the relevant text from the spec. If you follow the link to the text it is quoting, you will read: [Definition: A sequence is an ordered collection of zero or more items.] Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Mukul Gandhi [mailto:mukul_gandhi@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 04 July 2005 09:55 > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [xsl] Unordered sequences in XPath 2.0 > > I am reading this article - > http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2005/02/02/xpath2.html > > It says.. > "A sequence is an unordered collection of zero or more > items." > (Please note the word unordered). > > Then it says, "An XPath expression describes a set of > nodes, the value of that XPath expression is a > sequence". > > This means, that the sequence representation of XPath > 2.0 expression will be unordered.. Is this true? I > think, this was not the case with XPath 1.0? > > Regards, > Mukul > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Sports > Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football > http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Unordered sequences in XP, David Carlisle | Thread | Re: [xsl] Numbers containing 'e+..', Drew McLellan |
Re: [xsl] Unordered sequences in XP, David Carlisle | Date | RE: [xsl] Unordered sequences in XP, Mukul Gandhi |
Month |