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

Re: [xsl] Does the count() function require access to the whole subtree?


Subject: Re: [xsl] Does the count() function require access to the whole subtree?
From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:44:36 -0800

 What is wrong with "containment"?

What about "joined" and "disjoint"?
The other precise but not so short names are "directly-related" vs.
"non-directly related", or maybe "strongly-related".
Also: "disparate" vs. "contained"



On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I mean that within the set of nodes selected by //x, there may be two nodes A and B such that A is an ancestor of B.
>>>
>>> (I'm not using the term overlap in the sense of non-hierarchic markup: perhaps that's the cause of any confusion).
>>
>> Yes that is a big source of confusion. "Overlap" in its general sense
>> means that their isn't proper containment -- just intersection.
>>
>> And this is not the case here at all.
>>
>> It would be precise and clear to replace the term "overlapping" with
>> something like "containment".
>
> Yes, this is hard because English appears not to have a verb that
> indicates a reciprocal ancestor/descendant relation. Ancestor nodes
> may contain, include or "dominate" descendant nodes, but since the
> graph is acyclic, nodes never contain each other.
>
> One could say more simply "a 'crawling' expression -- one that selects
> both ancestors and their descendants together". But that doesn't solve
> the problem for the spec, as in "For example, an implementation might
> be able to treat the expression .//title as striding rather than
> crawling if it can establish from knowledge of the schema that two
> title elements will never overlap" [18.1.1]. I suppose that could be
> rewritten too ... "no title element will contain another". Or "will
> never coincide".
>
> Does the spec need a term to indicate this relation in the general
> case? I agree that the term "overlap" is fraught with other senses,
> and should probably be avoided.
>
> Cheers, Wendell
>
> Wendell Piez | http://www.wendellpiez.com
> XML | XSLT | electronic publishing
> Eat Your Vegetables
> _____oo_________o_o___ooooo____ooooooo_^
>



-- 
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
-------------------------------------
To avoid situations in which you might make mistakes may be the
biggest mistake of all
------------------------------------
Quality means doing it right when no one is looking.
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play
-------------------------------------
To achieve the impossible dream, try going to sleep.
-------------------------------------
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
-------------------------------------
Typing monkeys will write all Shakespeare's works in 200yrs.Will they
write all patents, too? :)
-------------------------------------
I finally figured out the only reason to be alive is to enjoy it.


Current Thread
Keywords