- From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:21:08 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Innovimax SARL wrote: > Hello Eric, > > This is exactly the proposal of Richard at last telcon > But the problem is that NODESETs are SETs > Even if the specification speeks about beeing *consistent*, i'm not sure > we have the same behavior for set as for sequence > > What about the behavior if we have two identical documents in the > sequence for example ? You could be compatible with what XSLT does by using the system id to identify documents that are in fact *the same* document (not just identical). > I'm inclined to think that NODESETs are "not too far" from NODELIST or > DOCUMENT SEQUENCE but, it is clear for me that if we use NODELIST, we > introduce a new type in XPath 1.0 and as a consequence, implementors > won't be able too just reuse existing XPath 1.0 component, even XPath > 2.0 component, but to hack them. Then let's keep nodesets. > This having been said, if we have to use a hacked XPath in XProc, let's > look at all extension we could have to put in to have a nice construct I don't think we need to hack XPath 1.0. -Erik
Received on Monday, 5 June 2006 17:21:17 UTC