Re: Requirements for XSLT 1.1 (rtf/node set to boolean coercion)

[Gary L Peskin <garyp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have noted this correction on page 427 of Mike Kay's excellent book.

I, too, was confused and was ready to defend Mike's published
interpretation.  However, a closer reading of the spec (section 11.1)
does say "A result tree fragment is treated equivalently to a node-set
that contains just a single root node. ... When a permitted operation is
performed on a result tree fragment, it is performed exactly as it would
be on the equivalent node-set."

That cleared it up for me.

HTH,
Gary

Evan Lenz wrote:
> 
> What Mike Kay said a couple weeks ago:
> 
> <quote>
> I wrongly suggested in my book (sorry, Microsoft) that the implicit coercion
> had a side-effect in causing the conversion of a result tree fragment to a
> boolean to give the wrong answer. In fact converting a result tree fragment
> to a boolean should always give the answer "true", and it was Saxon that was
> wrong in returning the result of
>  boolean(string($rtf))
> </quote>
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of David Carlisle
> Subject: Requirements for XSLT 1.1 (rtf/node set to boolean coercion)
> 
> Looks good!
> 
> One question/comment on result tree fragment/node set unification.
> 
> The new requirements document is worded so as to imply that the only
> difference between rtf and node-set is the restriction of the allowed
> operators.
> 
> I had thought that the other difference was coercion to boolean,
> [snip]


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list