RE: [XQuery ] doc. order of attribute nodes created in element constructor

Certainly the order of attributes should be undefined, but you're
probably right that the documents don't currently say that it's
undefined.

Michael Kay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jan Hidders
> Sent: 02 February 2004 14:52
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: [XQuery ] doc. order of attribute nodes created in 
> element constructor
> 
> 
> 
> L.S.,
> 
> Can the implementation of a computed elemement constructor 
> freely choose 
> the order of the attribute nodes? For example, is the result of
> 
>   element { "a" } { attribute { "b" } { "" }, attribute { "c" 
> } { "" } }
> 
> always
> 
>    <a b="" c=""/>
> 
> or can it also be
> 
>    <a c="" b=""/>
> 
> ? I would expect the latter for fundamental (attributes are 
> essentially 
> unordered) and practical reasons (letting the implementation choose a 
> certain ordering my sometimes make certain operations more 
> efficient), 
> but It's not clear to me what the informal and formal 
> semantics exactly 
> have to say about this.
> 
> I already raised a related point before (the document order of the 
> contents of an element created with a computed element 
> constructor seems 
> underspecified) but am not sure about the follow-up, so if this has 
> already been discussed I apologize.
> 
> -- Jan Hidders
> 
> -- 
>    .-----------.-----------------------------------------------------.
>   / Jan Hidders \  Home Page: 
> http://www.win.ua.ac.be/~hidders/       \
>  
> .---------------.---------------------------------------------
> --------.
>  | Post-doctoral researcher               e-mail: 
> jan.hidders@ua.ac.be |
>  | Dept. Math. & Computer Science         tel: (+32) 3 265 38 
> 73       |
>  | University of Antwerp                  fax: (+32) 3 265 37 
> 77       |
>  | Middelheimlaan 1, BE-2020 Antwerpen, BELGIUM     room: G 
> 3.21       |
>  
> `-------------------------------------------------------------
> --------'
>  
> 
>

Received on Monday, 2 February 2004 12:01:19 UTC