Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for) From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 09:35:44 +0000 |
Hi Dimitre, > As I already pointed out in my reply to Dave, > >> $departments map lower-case(.) > > would be ambiguous, as lower-case(.) is a value/string (the result > of the application of lower-case() on . True - with most operators, both operands are evaluated with the same focus and the result is combined in some way. But this isn't true for all "operators": the / "operator" for instance: table / row does not involve getting the child table elements of the context node and combining them in some way with the child row elements of the context node. Instead, the expression 'row' is performed with a focus derived from the expression 'table'. The "dereference operator" is similar: figref[1]/@refid => figure Perhaps it's therefore wrong to call these syntactic constructs 'operators' (is there a better name?). My intent was that 'map' behaved in a similar way to '/'. Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . i, Dimitre Novatchev | Thread | RE: [xsl] Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re:, Michael Kay |
RE: [xsl] Internet Explorer for Ma, Mark Seaborne | Date | RE: [xsl] XPath 2.0, Michael Kay |
Month |