Subject: Re: [xsl] Where in the XPath 2.0 is the text stating that a function can be used as the location step? From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:00:31 -0700 |
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Hermann Stamm-Wilbrandt <STAMMW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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]B B B StepExpr B B B ::=B B B FilterExpr | AxisStep > > [38]B B B FilterExpr B B B ::=B B B PrimaryExpr PredicateList > > [41]B B B PrimaryExpr B B B ::=B B B Literal | VarRef | ParenthesizedExpr | > ContextItemExpr | FunctionCall > This is exactly what I am saying: Only three rules, not twenty. Good way of hiding some of the most useful new functionality. > > 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: B B B Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> > To: B B B B xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: B B B 07/29/2010 03:57 PM > Subject: B B Re: [xsl] Where in the XPath 2.0 is the text stating that a > B B B B B B function B B 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 > > -- 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 ------------------------------------- I enjoy the massacre of ads. This sentence will slaughter ads without a messy bloodbath.
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Where in the XPath 2.0 is, Hermann Stamm-Wilbra | Thread | [xsl] dynamic function invocation, Andriy Gerasika |
Re: [xsl] Where in the XPath 2.0 is, Hermann Stamm-Wilbra | Date | [xsl] ANN: LIBX* July 2010 Beta Rel, Steve Ball |
Month |