Subject: Re: [xsl] break or exit in xsl?|
From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 06:20:39 +1100
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 06:10:51 -0800 (PST), Mukul Gandhi <mukul_gandhi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Mr. Kay, > I agree with you! > > But I would like to say something about this statement > you said.. > "So long as the order of the output sequence > corresponds in this way to the order of the input > sequence, the nodes can actually be processed in any > order or in parallel." > > ..How practical is it(and is it possible to implement > easily) to process input nodes in any random order or > in parallel? I guess ,ofcouse it can be done.. But > processing input nodes in some random order or > parallel(rather than using some popular or natural > algorithms of tree traversal..) , and then making > effort to generate output matching the document order > could be inefficient! > > Regards, > Mukul Dear Mukul, Judging from the "important things" you say about XSLT, it seems to me that you have seriously neglected your reading. Recently you have been generating a lot of non-high-quality traffic on this list and this has long ago stopped being even amusing. Please, make use of the facility that M.D. Peterson has kindly made available -- at http://practice.xsltwiki.com where anyone can write *incorrect and incomplete* content. In this thread you have made once again a number of false statements: 'the "select attribute" of for-each selects a subtree with the original tree.. ' 1. The "select" attribute doesn't select, but even if it "selected" it wouldn't be a "subtree" in the general case. 2. The node-set specified by the XPath expression in the "select" attribute may generally contain nodes from more than one document. 3. It is possible that none of these nodes is from "the original tree". So just in one short sentence you managed to pack three false statements. Not to speak about the new "definitions" invented by you: 'So it is sequential processing from "document order point of view"..' This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding even basic concepts. "Processing" and "sequential processing" are meaningful concepts only if "time" is defined. "Document order" is completely independent of "time". Therefore, document order cannot impose sequential processing. May I ask you again to check and re-check your statements and better, before writing read good books on XPath and XSLT and ask other people off-list if what you're going to present as an absolute truth about XSLT is really correct? Dimitre Novatchev.