giacomo wrote: >On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Sylvain Wallez wrote: > >>giacomo wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Sylvain Wallez wrote: >>> >>><sniped/> >>> >>>>As for the last issue with view and aggregation, could some view-guru >>>>explain exactly how are to be handled the different parts of an >>>>aggregate with the different cases (no label, label on map:part and/or >>>>map:generate). >>>> >>>There has been a thread on that weeks ago between Stefano and me. You'll >>>have to look in the archives. >>> >>>Giacomo >>> >>Could you please confirm that views on aggregation is defined as follows ? >> >><map:part> : >>- if no view is requested, all parts are added, >>- if the requested view corresponds to one of the labels of at least one >>of the parts, only matching parts are added, >>- if the requested view doesn't correspond to any of the labels of any >>of the parts, all parts are added, just like when no view is requested. >> >><map:aggregate> : >>- acts like a generator, i.e. it reacts to its label and views >>from-position="first", >>- handling of an aggregate's label is independent from the labels of its >>parts, i.e. it doesn't depend on whether some parts were filtered or not. >> >>This mainly on the third point for <map:part> (the view doesn't match >>any label of any part) that I'd like confirmation. >> > >Well, I have to dig into the sitemap.xsl and some other code to really >see how I've implemented it (cannot remember by heart). > Mmmh, since this specification comes from a reverse engineering of sitemap.xsl, don't loose time digging ;)
I'll correct the current aggregate/view bug in interpreted sitemap so that it conforms to this, and we'll see if it's satisfactory. Sylvain -- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies - http://www.anyware-tech.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
