[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

RE: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl:sort

Subject: RE: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl:sort
From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:06:50 +0100

> > Me too. Turing completeness is not the same as closure over 
> the data model.
> > To take an obvious example, there is no way of creating a 
> result tree that
> > contains an unparsed entity, even though the data model 
> allows unparsed
> > entities to exist.
> 
> Closure only implies that you never create anything not in 
> the set; not 
> that you can create everything in the set.

Thanks for the correction, you're right of course. Is there a term for what
I was trying to express: "complete coverage", perhaps?

Michael Kay

Current Thread
Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl:sort, (continued) Dimitre Novatchev - 30 Apr 2005 00:13:15 -0000 Message not available Dimitre Novatchev - 30 Apr 2005 01:27:57 -0000 David Carlisle - 29 Apr 2005 22:49:50 -0000 Elliotte Harold - 29 Apr 2005 22:57:25 -0000 Michael Kay - 30 Apr 2005 13:07:39 -0000 <=

<- Previous	Index	Next ->
Re: [xsl] following-sibling and xsl, Elliotte Harold	Thread	[xsl] I'm obviously doing something, Deirdre Saoirse Moen
[xsl] Newbie question on Recusrion , Marco Mastrocinque	Date	RE: [xsl] Newbie question on Recusr, Michael Kay
	Month

© 2002-2008 SyncRO Soft Ltd. All rights reserved.
                                             | Sitemap | Privacy Policy 
 This website was created & generated with
                                             <oXygen/> XML Editor