This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: XPath 2.0: Collection-Valued Expressions (Was: Re: XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators Version 1.0)
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: XPath 2.0: Collection-Valued Expressions (Was: Re: [xsl] XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators Version 1.0)
- From: Mark Nahabedian <naha at ai dot mit dot edu>
- Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 08:05:11 -0400
- Cc: "Michael Kay" <mhkay at iclway dot co dot uk>
- References: <000d01c138bd$da6d38d0$ae453c3e@PCUKMKA><109155874045.20010909115141@jenitennison.com>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
Jeni Tennison writes:
> Hi Mike,
>
> > As for the division between XPath and XSLT, I think the best way of
> > rationalising the split is that XPath is for selecting information
> > from the source document, XSLT is for constructing the result
> > document. It should never be necessary to use multiple instructions
> > at the XSLT level in order to extract a single piece of information
> > from the source document.
>
> I'm beginning to understand that part of that separation is also
> between simple types (strings, decimals, dates etc.) and complex types
> (XML). For example, even in XPath/XSLT 1.0, you can construct a string
> from within XPath with the concat() and format-number() functions. So
> FLWR expressions in XPath 2.0 would be used for generate sequences of
> simple values whereas xsl:for-each constructs in XSLT 2.0 would be
> used to generate complex values.
>
> ... but then what are the functions like xf:copy() and xf:shallow()
> doing in XPath? They seem to be about constructing the result
> document. Aren't they?
>
> >> Can you (or someone) reassure me that there will still be automatic
> >> conversions between value types such that we won't have to be
> >> casting/constructing specific data types all over the place?
> >
> > This is a matter of intense debate. I wish I could give you such an
> > assurance but you'll have to wait and see what gets published.
>
> OK Mike, I'll trust you to fight the good fight.
Is there some way that we should make it clear to the working group
how big Mike's "constituency" is?
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list