On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Sylvain Wallez wrote: > 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.
Ok, yes, thanks. Giacomo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
