- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 01:02:26 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6470
Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jmdyck@ibiblio.org
--- Comment #3 from Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> 2009-02-07 01:02:26 ---
[Personal response. All statements should be taken as if prefixed by
"I believe".]
(In reply to comment #0)
>
> As the "ordered" examples in the XQFT Specs are very simple, I would like
> to know what is supposed to happen here:
>
> Query: ('A' & 'B') | ('C' & 'D') ordered
>
> a) ("A" and "B") has to be ordered, OR ("C" and "D") has to be ordered?
> b) ("A" and "C"), ("A" and "D"), ("B" and "C") OR ("B" and "D")
> has to be ordered?
> c) "A" and "B" and "C" and "D" has to be ordered?
(a). Note that the 'ordered' filter operates on the matches
generated by the preceding FTOr (operates on each match independent
of the others). In this case, each of those matches will have two
StringIncludes, either one for 'A' and one for 'B', or else one for 'C'
and one for 'D'. So there's no way that the filter could enforce the
constraints described in (b) and (c).
> Assuming case a), is it equivalent to the following query?
>
> d) ("A" & "B" ordered) | ("C" & "D" ordered)
Yes.
> Next, what about this query?..
>
> e) ("A" & "B" ordered) | ("C" & "D" ordered) ordered
That one is also equivalent.
> To put it differently, does the "ordered" selection really evaluate
> AND/OR combinations? I am still trying to find solutions for the
> following queries - can you help me out?..
>
> f) ('A' | 'B') ordered
The addition of the 'ordered' filter has no effect on the result
of the FTSelection.
> g) ('A' | 'B') & ('C' | 'D') ordered
The search content must contain [an 'A' or a 'B'] that is followed by
[a 'C' or a 'D'].
> h) ('A' & !'B') ordered
The search context must contain an 'A' that is not followed by a 'B'.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 7 February 2009 01:02:36 UTC