Re: creation order vs. document order

On Tuesday 23 September 2003 23:54, Michael Rys wrote:
> What Michael points out is that there are two notions of orders for
> nodes.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I know that is what he was trying to 
point out and I believe I already made clear that I already knew that by 
asking the follow-up questions that I asked. My comment was that the example 
that he gave:

>> let $tree1 := (<x><y/><y/></x>)/y
>> return $tree1[1] << $tree1[2]

does not demonstrate that the sibling-order of the two y elements is equal to 
their document order. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what he wants to make 
clear with the example, but otherwise I don't see the point of it.

Anyway, I still would like to know if it is possible for child nodes in a 
fragment that is not in a document to have a sibling-order that is different 
from the document order. Right now the formal semantics seem to say that it 
can. That surprises me.

-- Jan Hidders

Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 19:32:14 UTC