- From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:54:24 -0700
- To: "Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders@ua.ac.be>, <www-ql@w3.org>
What Michael points out is that there are two notions of orders for nodes. One is the order of a node within the context of a document. Free standing nodes do not belong to a node and thus have no real document order. Since we however have functions such as << that check for document order, the data model specs says that such nodes have implementation-dependent but stable document order. The second kind of order is the sequence order of the result of an expression. This may or may not be the same as the document order. So if you say something like: let $x := (doc("a.xml")/a/b[2], doc("a.xml")/a/b[1]) return $x then $x[1] precedes $x[2] in the sequence order but follows it in the document order. Similarly, if you say let $y := (<a/>, <b/>) return $y then $y[1] precedes $y[2] in the sequence order, but it is implementation-dependent, how the two elements will fare w.r.t. their document-order. HTH Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ql-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ql-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > Jan Hidders > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 2:43 PM > To: www-ql@w3.org > Subject: Re: creation order vs. document order > > > On Tuesday 23 September 2003 21:18, Michael Brundage wrote: > > ? > > > > It is not possible for child nodes to be in anything other than document > > order. > > Well, that is what I'm trying to find out. Can you tell me where in the > formal > specification it says that? As Torsten and Bas already pointed out, > Section > 3.2 of the data model says: > >> The relative order of free-standing nodes (elements, attributes, and > >> other nodes created outside the context of a particular document) is > >> also implementation-dependent but stable. > > Are you saying that if I create an element with a few children and assign > it > to a variable then I have created those children "in the context of a > particular document"? Or is the bracketed part not the definition of > "free-standing" and does free-standing mean "without a parent"? > > -- Jan Hidders >
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 17:54:28 UTC