[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Re: [xsl] Priorities of unionised patterns
Subject: Re: [xsl] Priorities of unionised patterns From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:32:22 +0100 |
I asked because I know more from getting an answer than I would have if I hadn't asked or if I had just experimented. It looks like I had multiple submissions..... sorry about that .... problems with gmail formatting. On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > You're asking as if we had a choice. But the semantics have been well defined since 1999, so why raise the question now? > > And the approach you are proposing is very paternalistic. Disallowing things because the user might not understand what they are doing is not generally a good design principle, especially when it breaks orthogonality. (Treating the separate parts of a union pattern differently was already a serious breach of orthogonality, but that's a different question.) > > Michael Kay > Saxonica > > On 9 Apr 2013, at 12:37, Ihe Onwuka wrote: > >> Given that the sub parts of a unionized pattern retain their individual >> priorities >> >> <xsl:template match="A|B[*] ...... >> >> What should be the semantic if you were to now specify a priority attribute. >> The instinctive reaction would be they should all get the same priority but >> there not a case for saying that it should not be allowed. >> >> The rationale would be to highlight that the subparts may have had >> different priorities in the first place so making their priorities >> homogenous might actually be the source of what would be a hard to find bug.
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Priorities of unionised p, Michael Kay | Thread | [xsl] Saxon-EE 9.4.0.6 can't adress, bjoern . duenckel |
Re: [xsl] Priorities of unionised p, Michael Kay | Date | [xsl] Saxon-EE 9.4.0.6 can't adress, bjoern . duenckel |
Month |