- From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 09:21:07 -0700
- To: <Svgdeveloper@aol.com>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Good reading :-) The sentence in XPath Chapter 2 is basically trying to say that $a is ((), $a) which does not imply that a sequence has identity but that a singleton can be treated like a singleton list. I think some editorial rewording may solve it. What about: An item $x is identical to a singleton sequence containing that item in the sense that $x = ((), $x). ? Best regards Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Svgdeveloper@aol.com [mailto:Svgdeveloper@aol.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 9:03 AM > To: public-qt-comments@w3.org > Subject: XPath/XQuery/Data Model : Data Model Inconsistency? > > > I am trying to put a few statements together and, at the moment at least, > they don't quite add up for me. > > In XPath Chapter 2 it is stated, "Each node has a unique node identity." > > In Data Model Chapter 6 it is stated, "A sequence has no identity". > > In XPath Chapter 2 it is stated, "An item is identical to a singleton > sequence containing that item." > > However, if the item in a singleton sequence is a node then it seems that > the > sequence with a single node has no identity. However if the node exists > "on > its own", as it were, it does have identity. ... If you see what I mean. > :) > > Is there an inconsistency? Or have I missed a caveat somewhere? > > Perhaps the seeming problem can be solved by adding some judicious > qualifying > phrase in an appropriate place? > > Andrew Watt
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 12:21:14 UTC