Subject: RE: [xsl] RE: Postional predicates de-mystified From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 15:52:17 -0000 |
> Curious about the shift from node-set to sequence then. > Was it because of all the discussion (confusion?) on the list > re sets? I think it started with the fact that XML Schema supports lists as a data type, for example IDREFS is a list of strings. XQuery wanted to support lists of nodes (without them, what is the result of a sort operation?), and so came the idea of a data model based on sequences. There was then considerable debate about whether the model should support sets and sequences as separate types, with an eventual consensus that operations that naturally produced sets (like path and union expressions) would be defined as producing a sequence in canonical order, as this kept the model simpler. The confusion about XPath 1.0 node-sets may have had an influence. It wasn't confined to this list either - I've heard people within W3C, people with a mathematical training who should know better - claim that XPath 1.0 node-sets were really sequences all the time. Mike Kay XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] RE: Postional predicates , DPawson | Thread | RE: [xsl] RE: Postional predicates , DPawson |
Re: [xsl] xpath2 functions returnin, Jeni Tennison | Date | RE: [xsl] RE: Postional predicates , Michael Kay |
Month |