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

Re: Issue #3306

From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:21:08 +0100
Message-ID: <44846804.4090201@orbeon.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Innovimax SARL wrote:
 > Hello Eric,
 > 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 ?

You could be compatible with what XSLT does by using the system id to
identify documents that are in fact *the same* document (not just

 > I'm inclined to think that NODESETs are "not too far" from NODELIST or
 > DOCUMENT SEQUENCE but, it is clear for me that if we use NODELIST, we
 > introduce a new type in XPath 1.0 and as a consequence, implementors
 > won't be able too just reuse existing XPath 1.0 component, even XPath
 > 2.0 component, but to hack them.

Then let's keep nodesets.

 > This having been said, if we have to use a hacked XPath in XProc, let's
 > look at all extension we could have to put in to have a nice construct

I don't think we need to hack XPath 1.0.

Received on Monday, 5 June 2006 17:21:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:40 UTC