Subject: Re: process order (still...) From: Mike Brown <mike@xxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:00:45 -0600 (MDT) |
> The ordering that I was trying to stress was different and > implementation dependent is the `chronological' order in which nodes > are added to the result tree. That is when the actual templates > get fired. This may happen in any order, or all at the same time. Ah, true, but we write stylesheets as if the templates are going to be instantiated serially. "Add foo to the result tree, add bar to the result tree, identify this node-set, execute the instructions in the template that best matches the first node in the set, then the second node, then the third, etc." If we didn't have rules for ordering, we wouldn't ever be able to predict what the result tree would look like. So are we in agreement when I assert that 'the nodes are processed in document order' really means something more like 'the result tree and/or result tree fragments created by the templates for these nodes are created such that the spatial order of the nodes *is as if* the templates had been instantiated one at a time, for each node in document order' ? Not that that's any less confusing :) - Mike ___________________________________________________________ Mike J. Brown, software engineer, Webb Interactive Services XML/XSL stuff: http://www.skew.org/ http://www.webb.net/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: process order (still...), David Carlisle | Thread | Re: process order (still...), David Carlisle |
Re: How to get the name of an eleme, David Carlisle | Date | Re: process order (still...), David Carlisle |
Month |