Merlin, > r/gregor.karlinger@iaik.at/2002.07.10/09:26:32 > >Wouldn't it be sufficient to have instructions like: > > > > Process each node in the document, adding each node to the filter > > node-set if and only if the node is present in any > subtree-expanded > > union node-set and all subsequent subtree-expanded intersect > > node-sets but no subsequent subtree-expanded subtract > node-sets, or > > false otherwise. If there are no subsequent intersect or subtract > > node-sets, then that part of the test is automatically passed. > > > >Regards, Gregor > > That sounds perfect to me; I'd change "the document" at the > start to "the input node-set" and "the filter node-set" to > "the output node-set". Then I'd follow with this: This is fine, since it implicitely includes the final set intersection. > Presence in a subtree-expanded node-set can be efficiently > determined > without actually expanding the node-set, by simply maintaining a > stack or count that identifies whether any nodes from that node-set > are an ancestor of the node being processed. Fine again. Regards, Gregor
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 09:14:50 UTC