- From: Michael Dyck <MichaelDyck@home.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:49:19 -0800
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- CC: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > > The current XPointer working draft states in section 2: > > [Definition: location-set] > An ordered list of locations, such as produced by an XPointer > expression. This corresponds > to the node-set that is produced by XPath expressions, > except for the generalization to > include points and ranges. > > Actually, this corresponds to XPath's node list, not to XPath's node > set. The difference is that a node set is unordered according to both > the standard meaning of the word "set" and to the XPath 1.0 spec, which > states in section 1: > > node-set (an unordered collection of nodes without duplicates) Hi Elliotte. Andrew Watt pointed this out on January 18th (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2001JanMar/0039.html) and I repeated it on January 30th (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2001JanMar/0054.html) There hasn't been any response from the WG though. (Not that they're obliged to, but sometimes they do.) > This should be able to be fixed with editorial changes without changing > any of the functionality of XPointer. However, the editorial changes > might be large, particularly if you change the term "location set" to > "location list" (whihc I would recommend, assuming you really did intend > that location sets be ordered). I don't think there's any need for location-sets to be ordered, just as there's no need for node-sets to be ordered in XPath. It would easier to simply change "An ordered list of locations" to "An unordered list of locations". -Michael Dyck
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 02:51:38 UTC