Subject: Re: [xsl] Re: A question about the expressive power and limitations of XPath 2.0 From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 16:10:08 GMT |
> There are perl style {2} repeat clauses in the XML Schema regular yes I know, I mean to give that as an example of a surface syntax issue that doesn't change the language accepted. (Given the repeat clause is a fixed integer you could always just explictly duplicate the subexpression rather than using {2}. > However, I suspect that test(), match() and replace() functions will > still be specified, and those do need ^ and $ to make them useful, I > think. agreed. > But the current-match() function could still give a tree > representation of the match using rxp:match or whatever elements, as I > suggested in a message to Marc recently. yes, I'll play with that a bit more. > What do you think? not sure yet:-) > We would have to address here the problem that Marc pointed out to do > with how repeated subexpressions are captured... probably you'd just have to do whatever perl does with the meaning of numbered subterms that are repeated. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Re: A question about the , Jeni Tennison | Thread | Re: [xsl] Re: A question about the , Jeni Tennison |
RE: Entities Was: RE: [xsl] use cas, Bryan Rasmussen | Date | RE: [xsl] Trouble writing .xsl, Jason Rizer |
Month |