[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 12:34:08 -0800

Well, to call something that is "nested" -- "overlapping" is probably
less precise as calling a human  -- "animal" -- because a human is a
true subclass of Animal, while two overlapping concepts aren't
generally in a true containment relationship.

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Michael Sokolov
<msokolov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I know what it is that's trying to be expressed (although thank you for the
> lovely diagrams), but I disagree about the meaning of "overlap" - it is not
> nearly so precise as we might think it is, and certainly encompasses this
> situation.  In various dictionaries you will see definitions such as "To
> have one or more elements in common."  Another thought is: "coincident," but
> I prefer overlapping.
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
> On 01/14/2014 03:11 PM, Dimitre Novatchev wrote:
>>>
>>> one vote for overlap.  It seems the most obvious and (to me) unconfusing
>>> choice.
>>> Only people whose brains have been contaminated with *other markup
>>> paradigms*
>>> will be confused, and those have nothing to do with XML, do they :)
>>
>> My brain is not contaminated -- at least not with "other markup
>> paradigms".
>>
>> Overlapping means this:
>>
>>
>>                    -----------------------------------
>> ---------------|---------------                      |
>> |                 |                  |                     |
>> |                 |                  |                     |
>> ---------------|---------------                      |
>>                    -----------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> But what "overlapping"  is currently being used to label is this --
>> this is called "nested"
>>
>>
>>                    --------------------------------------
>>                    |     ---------------                      |
>>                    |     |                 |                     |
>>                    |     |                 |                     |
>>                    |     ---------------                      |
>>                    --------------------------------------
>>
>> Not only I find this very confusing.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Michael Sokolov
>> <msokolov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> one vote for overlap.  It seems the most obvious and (to me) unconfusing
>>> choice.  Only people whose brains have been contaminated with *other
>>> markup
>>> paradigms* will be confused, and those have nothing to do with XML, do
>>> they
>>> :)
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/14/2014 11:44 AM, Dimitre Novatchev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    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