- 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