This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: Requirements for XSLT 1.1 (rtf/node set to boolean coercion)
- To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
- Subject: Re: Requirements for XSLT 1.1 (rtf/node set to boolean coercion)
- From: Gary L Peskin <garyp at firstech dot com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:00:53 -0700
- Organization: The Firstech Corporation
- References: <BNEMICIEADHDDOIKLHNCIEDPCDAA.elenz@xyzfind.com>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
I have noted this correction on page 427 of Mike Kay's excellent book.
I, too, was confused and was ready to defend Mike's published
interpretation. However, a closer reading of the spec (section 11.1)
does say "A result tree fragment is treated equivalently to a node-set
that contains just a single root node. ... When a permitted operation is
performed on a result tree fragment, it is performed exactly as it would
be on the equivalent node-set."
That cleared it up for me.
HTH,
Gary
Evan Lenz wrote:
>
> What Mike Kay said a couple weeks ago:
>
> <quote>
> I wrongly suggested in my book (sorry, Microsoft) that the implicit coercion
> had a side-effect in causing the conversion of a result tree fragment to a
> boolean to give the wrong answer. In fact converting a result tree fragment
> to a boolean should always give the answer "true", and it was Saxon that was
> wrong in returning the result of
> boolean(string($rtf))
> </quote>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@mulberrytech.com]On Behalf Of David Carlisle
> Subject: Requirements for XSLT 1.1 (rtf/node set to boolean coercion)
>
> Looks good!
>
> One question/comment on result tree fragment/node set unification.
>
> The new requirements document is worded so as to imply that the only
> difference between rtf and node-set is the restriction of the allowed
> operators.
>
> I had thought that the other difference was coercion to boolean,
> [snip]
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list