[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
[xsl] Re: Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for)
Subject: [xsl] Re: Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for) From: Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 01:55:27 -0800 (PST) |
Jeni Tennison <jeni at jenitennison dot com> wrote: > True - with most operators, both operands are evaluated with the same > focus and the result is combined in some way. > > But this isn't true for all "operators": the / "operator" for > instance: > > table / row > > does not involve getting the child table elements of the context node > and combining them in some way with the child row elements of the > context node. Instead, the expression 'row' is performed with a > focus derived from the expression 'table'. > > The "dereference operator" is similar: > > figref[1]/@refid => figure > > Perhaps it's therefore wrong to call these syntactic constructs > 'operators' (is there a better name?). My intent was that 'map' > behaved in a similar way to '/'. I guess a similarity with '/' will lead to confusion only -- the ***difference*** is bigger as '/' produces a node-set and not (any) sequence. Perhaps one would want to write something like this: $departments/(lower-case(.)) It doesn't seem good to me. Cheers, Diitre Novatchev. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Content constructors and , Jeni Tennison | Thread | Re: [xsl] Re: Re: mapping (Was: Re:, Jeni Tennison |
RE: [xsl] XPath 2.0, Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] counting question, David Carlisle |
Month |