Re: Can sets have order?

Wolfgang May wrote:
> Thus, I argued that XML node sets - without any additional 
> information 
> due to internal representation - are multisets.  When using the
> internal representation, the set is not only not a multiset, but it 
> is 
> also ordered (which was the initial topic of the thread).


There's no such a beast -- "node sets - without any additional
information".

And this is not "internal representation" -- are almost all of the axes
"internal representation" or part of the standard XPath?

Node-sets contain nodes and every node has some properties that allow
to evaluate XPath expressions (like preceding::*) in a meaningful way.

Shall we blame XPath for this... ? :o))) Only because these facts do
not support some theories?

On the other side it is fortunate that XPath is at least as rich and
expressive, as it is. Were it not to contain all this "additional
information" XSLT programming would be extremely difficult, if possible
at all.

Dimitre Novatchev.


__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list