RE: [xsl] Can sets have order?

Subject: RE: [xsl] Can sets have order?
From: Wolfgang May <may@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:19:45 +0100 (MET)
Dimitre Novatchev writes:
 > I find this an illustrative example of how one should not start and
 > continue an argument.
 > I believe this is sufficient for everyone to draw conclusions...

That quoting with reducing contexts to nearly nothing is 
not always ... ... useful?

 > Originally Wolfgang May wrote:
 > > ... Such nodes may be exchanged in the node set without
 > > changing the behavior of any XPath query.
 >                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 > Now Wolfgang May writes:
 > > These all are *relative* expressions - so these queries use the
 > > _premise_ the nodes can be distinguished to show that they can be
 > > distinguished.
 > > 
 > > For all (absolute) queries on the document
 > > 
 > >   //path/one-of-the-above-expressions
 > > 
 > > there is no difference if the nodes are exchanged.

Very simple: 

When *querying* a document, you *have* to start with the root node
(formally spoken, an AbsoluteLocationPath (XPath spec, rule [2])) --
or how else would you obtain access to a specific node for starting
your expression?
Thus the "(absolute)" was meant to emphasize this fact.


 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread