This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators Version 1.0
- To: <xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com>
- Subject: Re: [xsl] XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators Version 1.0
- From: cagle at olywa dot net (Kurt Cagle)
- Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 00:30:13 -0700
- References: <042d01c13829$ae879420$2100a8c0@swiftnet.tec>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
"Monotonically increasing" has a very precise mathematical definition that
is consistent here, though I would agree with Christ that being able to set
the iterator would be useful.
-- Kurt Cagle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Bayes" <chris@bayes.co.uk>
To: <xsl-list@lists.mulberrytech.com>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 10:47 PM
Subject: RE: [xsl] XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators Version
1.0
> Mike,
> What will <xsl:value-of select="1 TO 10" /> give you?
> What will <xsl:copy-of select="1 TO 10" /> give you?
> Will the "," be used as in xf:item-at(($seq1, $seq2), 5) and
> xf:item-at((1 TO 3, 4 TO 6), 5)?
> Will you be able to do <xsl:for-each select="(1 TO 3, 4 TO 6)">
> Why is TO only monotonically increasing?
>
> Ciao Chris
> P.s. Does the word monotonically (11.2.1.3) need to be there? It isn't
> in the online Cambridge dictionary and a quick search of google came up
> with 2 equally scary pages http://atlas-conferences.com/c/a/e/u/38.htm
> http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/people/mooncake/thesis/node87.html ;-)
>
> XML/XSL Portal
> http://www.bayes.co.uk/xml
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-xsl-list@lists.mulberrytech.com
> > [mailto:owner-xsl-list@lists.mulberrytech.com] On Behalf Of
> > Michael Kay
> > Sent: 07 September 2001 23:08
> > To: xsl-list@lists.mulberrytech.com
> > Subject: RE: [xsl] XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and
> > Operators Version 1.0
> >
> >
> > > > The idea is that a variable which in XPath 1.0 holds a node-set,
> > > > should in XPath 2.0 hold a sequence of nodes, the
> > sequence being in
> > > > document order with no duplicates.
> > >
> > > If a sequence can't contain duplicates what do you get from...
> >
> > A sequence can contain duplicates. But the idea is that (as a first
> > approximation) expressions that in XPath 1.0 return a
> > node-set, will in XPath 2.0 return a sequence in document
> > order without duplicates. New expressions and operators may
> > produce sequences that do contain duplicates.
> >
> > Mike Kay
> >
> >
> > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
> >
> >
>
>
> XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>
>
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list