- From: Don Chamberlin <chamberl@almaden.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:39:00 -0600
- To: "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
- Cc: Oliver Becker <obecker@informatik.hu-berlin.de>, public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF8F08D2C4.91D6F46B-ON88256D4F.0065D3D0-88256D4F.00661685@us.ibm.com>
I believe that the "in other words" sentence is correct. Our intention was
to define an implementation-dependent ordering among the documents and
document fragments that are in-scope for a given query. Furthermore, this
ordering is stable during the execution of a given query.
Cheers,
--Don Chamberlin
"Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>
Sent by: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org
06/24/2003 09:46 AM
To: Oliver Becker <obecker@informatik.hu-berlin.de>,
public-qt-comments@w3.org
cc:
Subject: RE: [DM] stable order
> section 3.2 Document Order of the XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0
> Data Model uses the term "stable" to characterize orders. I
> do not find any definition in this document what a stable order is.
I agree that this is missing. I think that in other documents we use a
phrase such as "consistent for the duration of a query or transformation",
which reflects the intent.
>
> Do you mean, if two nodes A and B whose order is
> implementation-dependent are in some concrete order then this
> order doesn't change within this model (for the lifetime of
> this instance; never)? Does it have to be the same order
> between two invocations of an implementation?
Who can say what the lifetime of an instance is?
>
> Moreover, regarding distinct documents, the specification says
>
> "The relative order of nodes in distinct documents is
> implementation-dependent but stable. In other words, given two
> distinct documents A and B, if a node in document A is before a
> node in document B, then every node in document A is before every
> node in document B."
>
> That sounds as if the second sentence ("In other words, ...")
> is a conclusion or an explanation of the term "stable order",
> but I can't
> apply this meaning to attribute or namespace nodes.
I think the "In other words" is wrong. The second sentence is saying
something quite different from the first; it is saying that although it's
implementation-defined whether nodes from document D precede or follow
nodes
from document E, they are never going to be intermingled.
Michael Kay
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 14:39:26 UTC