At 99/05/17 21:35 -0400, Chris Maden wrote:
>[Ray Waldin]
>> Isn't the ...ref() suffix (as in idref(), keyref(), and docref())
>> somewhat misleading?
>
>I think the argument is that you give id() an ID string, and you give
>idref() an IDREF attribute node. Similarly, docref() takes a node
>which is a reference to a document, while doc() takes a document
>locator.
I view this differently as id() can be given an IDREF attribute node; as I
posted recently there is no difference between id(@foo) and idref(@foo) if
foo lexically parses as a simple unique identifier (though they are
different if the value of the attribute can be parsed as a space separated
list of identifiers).
The way I view all of the foo() and fooref() distinctions is that foo() is
given a single value while fooref() is given a set of values "by reference
of a node set". Each of the functions work in this fashion.
>It's a little shaky, I agree, but moot; I believe that the foo() and
>fooref() functions are going to be merged in the next draft.
Interesting ... I think the distinction is important to preserve ...
perhaps Ray's previous recommendation (expanded slightly) of id()/idset(),
key()/keyset(), and doc()/docset() is appropriate. Whatever pattern is
established, the pattern should be used for all the functions.
I feel the distinction is important because id() can also be given a node
set as an argument, but in this case the value used is the value of the
first member of the set, while idref() of a node set "ref"ers to all the
values found in the node set.
.......... Ken
--
G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/s/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (Fax:-0995)
Website: XSL/XML/DSSSL/SGML services outline, XSL/DSSSL shareware,
stylesheet resource library, conference training schedule,
commercial stylesheet training materials, on-line XSL CBT.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
|
Cart
