This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: Can sets have order?
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: RE: [xsl] Can sets have order?
- From: Wolfgang May <may at informatik dot uni-freiburg dot de>
- Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:19:45 +0100 (MET)
- References: <20010202110000.10968.qmail@web6305.mail.yahoo.com>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
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.
Wolfgang
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list