- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 19:30:26 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Norman Walsh wrote: > Here are the options as I see them: > > 1. We use context position and context size and we make them be > correct. The context size is the number of documents in the sequence > and the context position is the number of the document in that > sequence. [snip] > Only in case 1 do we get complete consistency. But that totally > prevents a streaming implementation and requires (possibly massive > amounts of) buffering. I don't think it'll be difficult to persuade > our users that this is an unattractive option. (What's more, if they > have a step that actually really needs to know how many documents > are in the sequence, they can compute it with p:count.) What would be the problem with implementations detecting whether a particular XPath has a call to the last() function in it, and either streaming or buffering based on that? I agree that we don't want to take the hit of buffering everything whenever the processor evaluates an XPath expression, but I don't see why implementations have to be that dumb. Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2007 18:30:50 UTC