On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, David Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > ==================================================== > Cripes. It's not that far fetched that > > <b>8<c>2</c><d>3</d><e>3</e></b> > > might mean > > element b (total 8) consists of sub elements of d , e and f that contribute > 2, 3 and 3 respectively to whoever designed it. > ==================================================== > Its not far fetched that it also means > 8 *c(2) + d(3) + e(4) > > Its not far fetched but its not what it *actually* means in XML languages > (particularly this comes from the rule of how atomization of XML works). > > > There is defined default behaviour then then is 'whaterver you want > behaviour'. You actually have it both ... you are free > to parse the XML and assign whatever meaning you want. > > In general, I submit, one should be careful about presuming what things > *might mean* in languages (computer, human, and biological). > It is fun to speculate but one is usually totally wrong. > > Now your use case could be *coerced* to mean what you say but it's not the > default defined behavior. > > It's not farfetched that in C > > "a" + "b" + "c" == "abc" > > but its not actually true. >
Personally I avoid mixed content models wherever possible. So it is more of an issue for those that don't. I was just messing about with these functions to see whether they were robust with respect to stability (that is stability as in a stable sort). _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
