On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Hermann Stamm-Wilbrandt
<STAMMW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Yes, and even here they talk about "filter expression" and the word
>> "function" or "function call" is never mentioned.
>
> Seems not so difficult to see in XPath 2.0 spec that a function call is
> allowed as StepExpr ...
>
> [27]B B B  StepExpr B B B ::=B B B  FilterExpr | AxisStep
>
> [38]B B B  FilterExpr B B B ::=B B B  PrimaryExpr PredicateList
>
> [41]B B B  PrimaryExpr B B B ::=B B B  Literal | VarRef | ParenthesizedExpr
|
> ContextItemExpr | FunctionCall
>


This is exactly what I am saying: Only three rules, not twenty.  Good
way of hiding some of the most useful new functionality.


>
> Mit besten Gruessen / Best wishes,
>
> Hermann Stamm-Wilbrandt
> Developer, XML Compiler, L3
> WebSphere DataPower SOA Appliances
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter
> Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dirk Wittkopp
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
>
>
>
> From: B  B  B  Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: B  B  B  B  xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: B  B  B  07/29/2010 03:57 PM
> Subject: B  B Re:  Where in the XPath 2.0 is the text stating that a
> B  B  B  B  B  B function B  B can be used as the location step?
>
>
>
>>> Even a single example in the spec. would also be of great help and a
>>> step forward.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I found a single example: the last example in 3.3.2.
>
> Yes, and even here they talk about "filter expression" and the word
> "function" or "function call" is never mentioned.
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Dimitre Novatchev
> ---------------------------------------
> Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
> ---------------------------------------
> To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
> -------------------------------------
> Never fight an inanimate object
> -------------------------------------
> You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
> you're doing is work or play
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> While the specification should not be a tutorial, groundbreaking
>>> changes and the most powerful new features should be at least
>>> summarized in a special section of the document
>>
>> In general I agree. I think the reason this wasn't done for XPath 2.0
> (apart
>> from the fact that no-one volunteered to do it!) is that the changes from
>> XPath 1.0 to 2.0 are so extensive.
>>
>>> Even a single example in the spec. would also be of great help and a
>>> step forward.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I found a single example: the last example in 3.3.2.
>>
>> Michael Kay
>> Saxonica
>
>



--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play
-------------------------------------
I enjoy the massacre of ads. This sentence will slaughter ads without
a messy bloodbath.