W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > June 2006

Re: Issue #3306

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:14:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4483E7DD.3020203@jenitennison.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Hi,

Innovimax SARL (Mohamed) wrote:
> This is exactly the proposal of Richard at last telcon
> But the problem is that NODESETs are SETs
> Even if the specification speeks about beeing *consistent*, i'm not sure 
> we have the same behavior for set as for sequence
> 
> What about the behavior if we have two identical documents in the 
> sequence for example ?

I agree that this is an issue. I think that we have the following options:

0. Say that queries over document sequences aren't supported in XProc

1. Say that XProc inputs and outputs are actually *sets* of documents

2. Say that XProc inputs and outputs are sequences with no duplicates, 
and, when translated into XPath datatypes, that the document order of 
the root nodes is determined by their order in the sequence

3. Define an XPath 1.x that supports sequences, and use that in XProc

4. Move to XPath 2.0, which supports sequences

Option 3 is the worst of these options, in my opinion, since it involves 
a lot of effort on our part and would be foreign to any users. I could 
live with any of the others, and currently have a vague preference for 
Option 1.

Do people have examples of components that produce sequences of 
documents where (a) the order of the documents within that sequence 
matters and/or (b) the sequence can contain duplicate documents? I would 
have thought such components could/should be written with multiple input 
ports, but I'm not sure.

Cheers,

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Monday, 5 June 2006 08:15:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:47 GMT