Subject: Re: [xsl] Does the count() function require access to the whole subtree? From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:34:08 -0800 |
Well, to call something that is "nested" -- "overlapping" is probably less precise as calling a human -- "animal" -- because a human is a true subclass of Animal, while two overlapping concepts aren't generally in a true containment relationship. On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Michael Sokolov <msokolov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I know what it is that's trying to be expressed (although thank you for the > lovely diagrams), but I disagree about the meaning of "overlap" - it is not > nearly so precise as we might think it is, and certainly encompasses this > situation. In various dictionaries you will see definitions such as "To > have one or more elements in common." Another thought is: "coincident," but > I prefer overlapping. > > -Mike > > > > On 01/14/2014 03:11 PM, Dimitre Novatchev wrote: >>> >>> one vote for overlap. It seems the most obvious and (to me) unconfusing >>> choice. >>> Only people whose brains have been contaminated with *other markup >>> paradigms* >>> will be confused, and those have nothing to do with XML, do they :) >> >> My brain is not contaminated -- at least not with "other markup >> paradigms". >> >> Overlapping means this: >> >> >> ----------------------------------- >> ---------------|--------------- | >> | | | | >> | | | | >> ---------------|--------------- | >> ----------------------------------- >> >> >> >> But what "overlapping" is currently being used to label is this -- >> this is called "nested" >> >> >> -------------------------------------- >> | --------------- | >> | | | | >> | | | | >> | --------------- | >> -------------------------------------- >> >> Not only I find this very confusing. >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Michael Sokolov >> <msokolov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> one vote for overlap. It seems the most obvious and (to me) unconfusing >>> choice. Only people whose brains have been contaminated with *other >>> markup >>> paradigms* will be confused, and those have nothing to do with XML, do >>> they >>> :) >>> >>> -Mike >>> >>> >>> On 01/14/2014 11:44 AM, Dimitre Novatchev wrote: >>>> >>>> What is wrong with "containment"? >>>> >>>> What about "joined" and "disjoint"? >>>> The other precise but not so short names are "directly-related" vs. >>>> "non-directly related", or maybe "strongly-related". >>>> Also: "disparate" vs. "contained" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Dimitre Novatchev >>>>> <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I mean that within the set of nodes selected by //x, there may be two >>>>>>> nodes A and B such that A is an ancestor of B. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (I'm not using the term overlap in the sense of non-hierarchic >>>>>>> markup: >>>>>>> perhaps that's the cause of any confusion). >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes that is a big source of confusion. "Overlap" in its general sense >>>>>> means that their isn't proper containment -- just intersection. >>>>>> >>>>>> And this is not the case here at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be precise and clear to replace the term "overlapping" with >>>>>> something like "containment". >>>>> >>>>> Yes, this is hard because English appears not to have a verb that >>>>> indicates a reciprocal ancestor/descendant relation. Ancestor nodes >>>>> may contain, include or "dominate" descendant nodes, but since the >>>>> graph is acyclic, nodes never contain each other. >>>>> >>>>> One could say more simply "a 'crawling' expression -- one that selects >>>>> both ancestors and their descendants together". But that doesn't solve >>>>> the problem for the spec, as in "For example, an implementation might >>>>> be able to treat the expression .//title as striding rather than >>>>> crawling if it can establish from knowledge of the schema that two >>>>> title elements will never overlap" [18.1.1]. I suppose that could be >>>>> rewritten too ... "no title element will contain another". Or "will >>>>> never coincide". >>>>> >>>>> Does the spec need a term to indicate this relation in the general >>>>> case? I agree that the term "overlap" is fraught with other senses, >>>>> and should probably be avoided. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, Wendell >>>>> >>>>> Wendell Piez | http://www.wendellpiez.com >>>>> XML | XSLT | electronic publishing >>>>> Eat Your Vegetables >>>>> _____oo_________o_o___ooooo____ooooooo_^ > -- Cheers, Dimitre Novatchev --------------------------------------- Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence. --------------------------------------- To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk ------------------------------------- Never fight an inanimate object ------------------------------------- To avoid situations in which you might make mistakes may be the biggest mistake of all ------------------------------------ Quality means doing it right when no one is looking. ------------------------------------- You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what you're doing is work or play ------------------------------------- To achieve the impossible dream, try going to sleep. ------------------------------------- Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. ------------------------------------- Typing monkeys will write all Shakespeare's works in 200yrs.Will they write all patents, too? :) ------------------------------------- I finally figured out the only reason to be alive is to enjoy it.
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Does the count() function, Michael Sokolov | Thread | Re: [xsl] Does the count() function, Michael Sokolov |
Re: [xsl] Does the count() function, Michael Sokolov | Date | RE: [xsl] Does the count() function, Costello, Roger L. |
Month |