- 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