[Bug 3618] [FT] let score clause


davidc@nag.co.uk changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |

------- Comment #2 from davidc@nag.co.uk  2006-11-01 09:55 -------
Thanks for your comments, however I'm re-opening the report while seeking some
further clarifications.

> As to the XPath proposal: We decided that we would consider this once the let
> clause is being added to XPath.

Do you mean that there is an intention to add let to Xpath 2+n? Is there any
(public or W3C member) list of proposed additions where this is documented?

> Using a score() context functions is somewhat
> problematic since a score value is not intrinsic to the node like its position
> but it depends on the score expression. 

I'm sorry but I do not understand this comment at all. position() is not
intrinsic to a node as it does not relate to a position in a node tree, but to
its position in the sequence currently selected, if I select a node with
parent::* it will always have position 1. I can select the same node with
child::* and get position() 1001 or any other number. In what way would this be
different from score() ?


Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2006 09:55:40 UTC