[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] 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
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|