Subject: Re: [xsl] the nearest ancestor with the attribute From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:39:31 GMT |
> It is not correct, regardless of how many times it is said. I'd agree with this (even though you posted it to contradict a statement of mine:-) I'd also agree with my original statement. Terminology isn't always consistently applied. > A set can be ordered or unordered. A set as defined in most set theories doesn't have any concept of order. Now you can of course have a set with an order (or often a set with a partial order: `poset') this formally is a pair consisting of a set and an ordering relation. However the common name for the pair is "ordered set" so you end up with the fact that it's a reasonable position to use the word "set" in either way. You just need to define your terms. And in the case of XSL I'd claim that "set" is used in the way I indicated. Consider sets of integers. The set {1,2,3} and {3,2,1} are the same set. But the ordered sets ( {1,2,3} , < ) and ( {1,2,3} , > ) ie the set ordered by less-than and greater-than relations, respectively are different ordered sets. When talking about document order or reverse document order in XSLT this is always a relation that is _applied_ to a node set, it is not an intrinsic property of the node set itself, in the way that the order is an intrinsic propoerty of an ordered set. It is not possible to have two different node sets with the same underlying collection of nodes, but different orderings as would be the case if ordered sets were your underlying model. David XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] the nearest ancestor with, Uche Ogbuji | Thread | [xsl] Can sets have order?, Uche Ogbuji |
RE: [xsl] Getting Current Date, Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] Getting the deepest node , David Carlisle |
Month |