- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:10:53 +0200
- To: "Michael Kay" <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
- Cc: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
* Michael Kay wrote: >> [allow:] >> <xsl:for-each ...> >> <xsl:variable ... /> >> <xsl:sort ... /> >> ... >The semantics of this would be very complicated. It would imply that the >variable is computed with a context based on the unsorted sequence. How >would this extend to: > > <xsl:for-each ...> > <xsl:variable ... /> > <xsl:sort ... /> > <xsl:variable ... /> > <xsl:sort ... /> It would not, the content model would rather be variable*, sort*, ... And as you said, the semantics would be the same as if the for-each had no sort children. Doesn't really sound complicated to me. When I authored the fragment above it's been the first time that my XSLT processor correctly and surprisingly considered my transformation malformed, hence this stroke me as counter-intuitive. I am not too concerned about this though. >This is a personal response, but as the official public comment period is >closed, I'm not going to place this on the WG agenda unless another WG >member asks for it to be added. The XSL WG is currently happy to accept >comments that report problems in the spec, but not requests for new >features. I am not sure I understand. The WG is required to formally address all comments, the end of the LC review period just allows the WG to refuse to make substantive changes in response to comments on procedural rather than technical grounds. I guess I would accept such a response, but I would nevertheless expect the WG to formally address my comment which seems to require to put it on the WG's agenda. Thanks.
Received on Saturday, 17 April 2004 05:11:11 UTC