Subject: Re: [xsl] Priorities of unionised patterns From: Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:22:21 +0100 |
You're asking as if we had a choice. But the semantics have been well defined since 1999, so why raise the question now? And the approach you are proposing is very paternalistic. Disallowing things because the user might not understand what they are doing is not generally a good design principle, especially when it breaks orthogonality. (Treating the separate parts of a union pattern differently was already a serious breach of orthogonality, but that's a different question.) Michael Kay Saxonica On 9 Apr 2013, at 12:37, Ihe Onwuka wrote: > Given that the sub parts of a unionized pattern retain their individual > priorities > > <xsl:template match="A|B[*] ...... > > What should be the semantic if you were to now specify a priority attribute. > The instinctive reaction would be they should all get the same priority but > there not a case for saying that it should not be allowed. > > The rationale would be to highlight that the subparts may have had > different priorities in the first place so making their priorities > homogenous might actually be the source of what would be a hard to find bug.
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Priorities of unionised patte, Ihe Onwuka | Thread | Re: [xsl] Priorities of unionised p, Ihe Onwuka |
Re: [xsl] XPath 3.0: Is it possible, Ihe Onwuka | Date | Re: [xsl] Priorities of unionised p, Ihe Onwuka |
Month |