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

Re: [xsl] combining multiple documents

---

---

On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 13:18 -0800, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
> Intuitively, and simply, the functional aggregator of "keys" would  
> aggregate each value it encounters and not have some implied context  
> for the values of that set. IOW, there is no intuitive requirement for  
> the context specifier. It seems unnecessary even in the context of a  
> functional language.


doc1.xml
--------
<doc>
  <title id="h1">page 1</title>
</doc> 

doc2.xml
--------
<doc>
  <title id="h1">page 2</title>
</doc>

There is the rub, as Shakespeare wrote in the Oxford English Book of
Quotations. If both have the same context, how do you know which to use?


> 
> The problem recurs in functional (the battle between implication and  
> explication) and, as far as possible, it is better to reduce this  
> problem. It will trip up programmers and add to the testing burden.
> 
> The issue, as I understand it here, is the scope of execution. Whether  
> it is the processing transaction or the individual document. I am  
> simply observing that, for global keys, the scope of the processing  
> transaction is the intuitive scope of execution.
> 
> If you accept that a transaction will, ultimately, want to process  
> multiple documents or documents with multiple components then it  
> should be clear that the implied context introduces referencing  
> difficulties. I suspect, and correct me if I am wrong, that the  
> initial design parameters for XSL gave this question less  
> consideration. And while the solution in this thread has solved my  
> particular challenge it does not generalize.
> 
> With respect,
> Steven
> 
> 
> On Jan 27, 2008, at 8:00 AM, Florent Georges wrote:
> 
> > Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
> >
> >> I do - at least I think I do - understand the implementation,
> >> I am just expressing a discomfort with the counter intuitive
> >> nature of the third parameter in key.
> >
> >  Could you please explain more precisely what would be, for
> > you, an intuitive definition of keys (with or without the third
> > parameter)?
> >
> >  Regards,
> >
> > --drkm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >       
> > _____________________________________________________________________________
> > Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers  
> > Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr

---