Re: [xsl] Where is 'intersect' Operator Defined in XPath 3?

["Dimitre Novatchev dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 9:04 AM Norm Tovey-Walsh ndw@xxxxxxxxxx <
xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Isn't this documented evidence of one of the epic editorial failures
> > in the history of XPath ?
>
> I appreciate that youbre frustrated by some of the editorial problems
> that exist in the XPath specifications. I think we are all sometimes
> frustrated by them. But as one of the editors, I feel a little insulted
> by the contemptuous tone of your remarks.
>

I apologize if the stated facts and the tone were perceived as contemptuous.
This was not intended as such, just a little accumulated desperation and
sadness ...

With no feelings whatsoever, but just the facts:

1. Have you tried to copy + paste the XSLT 3.0 specification into MS Word
and paginate it? If so, how many pages did the result contain?

    I did this and got over 1100 pages (1112 pages to be more accurate).
This document contains a total of 253583 words.

    Let us suppose that maybe Word's formatting was wrong. An average
printed page is said to contain around 250 words.

    Using this criteria we get  253583  / 250 = 1014.332 pages.

2. Do the same as 1. above but with the XSLT 1.0 specification. How many
pages do we get? Just 107 pages.

Does this fact tell us something and what?

Thanks,
Dimitre


>
> The specifications represent the diligent efforts of a team of
> volunteers working over a period of many years trying to craft
> descriptions that satisfied a wide variety of stakeholders.
>
> I hope that we can all work together constructively to continue to
> improve them.
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
> --
> Norman Tovey-Walsh <ndw@xxxxxxxxxx>
> https://nwalsh.com/
>
> > We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce
> > the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know
> > that is not true.--Robert Wilensky