[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 12:11:23 -0800

> 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