- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:14:35 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4728
------- Comment #4 from holstege@mathling.com 2007-11-05 17:14 -------
As we discussed, I think at this point it would be best to remove the
2nd-orderness of the "without content" modifier, which is in keeping with what
the semantics says, modify the sentence as suggested, and make the
corresponding
adjustments to section 3. Sample queries:
Then this query would be an error (no context item):
let $x =
<example>
<div>
a
<div>
b
</div>
c
</div>
</example>
return $x//div ftcontains "b" without content .//div
This query would return false, because we're excluding all the divs:
let $x =
<example>
<div>
a
<div>
b
</div>
c
</div>
</example>
return $x//div ftcontains "b" without content $x//div
To get the alternative interpretation (removing just the divs under the
search item), we could write:
let $x =
<example>
<div>
a
<div>
b
</div>
c
</div>
</example>
return fn:exists($x//div[. ftcontains "b" without content .//div])
I propose that we lose the second-orderness of the ignored nodes expression.
Then this query would be an error (no context item):
let $x =
<example>
<div>
a
<div>
b
</div>
c
</div>
</example>
return $x//div ftcontains "b" without content .//div
This query would return false, because we're excluding all the divs:
let $x =
<example>
<div>
a
<div>
b
</div>
c
</div>
</example>
return $x//div ftcontains "b" without content $x//div
To get the alternative interpretation (removing just the divs under the
search item), we could write:
let $x =
<example>
<div>
a
<div>
b
</div>
c
</div>
</example>
return fn:exists($x//div[. ftcontains "b" without content .//div])
I believe these makes the ftcontains expressions easier to understand, because
the "without content" expression then follows the same rules as other
expressions in XQuery.
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 17:14:42 UTC