W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > April 2004

Re: [XSLT2.0] variable preceding sort in for-each

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>
Message-ID: <4080f08b.186802698@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* 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

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.

Received on Saturday, 17 April 2004 05:11:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:56:56 UTC