[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Re: . in for

Subject: RE: Re: . in for
From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 17:55:39 -0000
RE:  Re: . in for
Jeni Tennison:
>  - I think that having cut-down FLWR expressions in XPath
>    complicates XPath unnecessarily, when a simple mapping operator
>    would fulfil the common requirements, and xsl:for-each or recursive
>    user-defined functions or templates can handle the rest.
We did think about this very carefully, and recognized that there is an
step-increase in complexity, which one would rather avoid, at the point
where you introduce range variables. You need range variables as soon as you
want to do joins; and I think the need for joins will increase significantly
once you allow manipulation of general sequences. My view is that XPath
should be relationally complete, that you should never have to drop into
XSLT to combine two sequences to produce a third sequence, and for that,
range variables are definitely needed. This is part of ensuring that XPath
can handle data-oriented XML (which often includes non-hierarchic
relationships) as well as it currently handles document structures, which
are predominantly hierarchical.

Mike Kay

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

Current Thread


Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.