Re: [xsl] Re: mapping (Was: Re: Re: . in for)

[Jeni Tennison <jeni at jenitennison dot com>]

Hi Dimitre,

> As I already pointed out in my reply to Dave,
>
>>   $departments map lower-case(.)
>
> would be ambiguous, as lower-case(.) is a value/string (the result
> of the application of lower-case() on .

True - with most operators, both operands are evaluated with the same
focus and the result is combined in some way.

But this isn't true for all "operators": the / "operator" for
instance:

  table / row

does not involve getting the child table elements of the context node
and combining them in some way with the child row elements of the
context node. Instead, the expression 'row' is performed with a
focus derived from the expression 'table'.

The "dereference operator" is similar:

  figref[1]/@refid => figure

Perhaps it's therefore wrong to call these syntactic constructs
'operators' (is there a better name?). My intent was that 'map'
behaved in a similar way to '/'.

Cheers,

Jeni

---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list