Re: [xsl] Where in the XPath 2.0 is the text stating that a function can be used as the location step?

[Hermann Stamm-Wilbrandt <STAMMW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Yes, and even here they talk about "filter expression" and the word
> "function" or "function call" is never mentioned.

Seems not so difficult to see in XPath 2.0 spec that a function call is
allowed as StepExpr ...

[27]    StepExpr    ::=    FilterExpr | AxisStep

[38]    FilterExpr    ::=    PrimaryExpr PredicateList

[41]    PrimaryExpr    ::=    Literal | VarRef | ParenthesizedExpr |
ContextItemExpr | FunctionCall



Mit besten Gruessen / Best wishes,

Hermann Stamm-Wilbrandt
Developer, XML Compiler, L3
WebSphere DataPower SOA Appliances
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294



From:       Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
To:         xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date:       07/29/2010 03:57 PM
Subject:    Re: [xsl] Where in the XPath 2.0 is the text stating that a
            function    can be used as the location step?



>> Even a single example in the spec. would also be of great help and a
>> step forward.
>>
>>
>
> I found a single example: the last example in 3.3.2.

Yes, and even here they talk about "filter expression" and the word
"function" or "function call" is never mentioned.



--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play



On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> While the specification should not be a tutorial, groundbreaking
>> changes and the most powerful new features should be at least
>> summarized in a special section of the document
>
> In general I agree. I think the reason this wasn't done for XPath 2.0
(apart
> from the fact that no-one volunteered to do it!) is that the changes from
> XPath 1.0 to 2.0 are so extensive.
>
>> Even a single example in the spec. would also be of great help and a
>> step forward.
>>
>>
>
> I found a single example: the last example in 3.3.2.
>
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica