Subject: RE: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl:sort From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:06:50 +0100 |
> > Me too. Turing completeness is not the same as closure over > the data model. > > To take an obvious example, there is no way of creating a > result tree that > > contains an unparsed entity, even though the data model > allows unparsed > > entities to exist. > > Closure only implies that you never create anything not in > the set; not > that you can create everything in the set. Thanks for the correction, you're right of course. Is there a term for what I was trying to express: "complete coverage", perhaps? Michael Kay
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl, Elliotte Harold | Thread | [xsl] I'm obviously doing something, Deirdre Saoirse Moen |
[xsl] Newbie question on Recusrion , Marco Mastrocinque | Date | RE: [xsl] Newbie question on Recusr, Michael Kay |
Month |