Subject: RE: Can sets have order?
From: "Michael Kay" <mhkay@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:38:23 -0000
|
> Well, no. Two sections confuse me:
>
> 1: "An axis identifies an (ordered) list of nodes. The predicate
> associated with the axis is applied to the ordered list."
>
> I would have thought that the following would make more sense, because
> it seems wierd to throw away an ordering that is never seen:
>
> "An axis identifies an (ordered) list of nodes. The predicate
> associated with the axis is applied to the *unordered set*."
I'm not arguing about what "makes sense", I'm telling you what the XPath
spec says.
>
> "The node-set is unordered, but
> the nodes have an ordering, called document order."
>
> It is confusing to say that node-sets are unordered, whilst nodes are.
I find it reasonable. If I have two sets {4, 6, 7} and {5, 6, 4} then 4<6 is
a property of the numbers 4 and 6, not a property of the set they happen to
be part of today.
Mike Kay
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
- Re: Can sets have order?, (continued)
- David Carlisle - Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:14:24 -0500 (EST)
- Mike Moran - Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:22:01 -0500 (EST)
- Michael Kay - Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:52:24 -0500 (EST)
- Mike Moran - Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:23:28 -0500 (EST)
- Michael Kay - Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:37:40 -0500 (EST) <=
- David Carlisle - Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:48:25 -0500 (EST)
- Uche Ogbuji - Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:15:01 -0500 (EST)
- David Carlisle - Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:27:32 -0500 (EST)
- Uche Ogbuji - Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:35:14 -0500 (EST)
|
|