> More comments on the documentation inside node-reference.xq:
> 1. I think the definition of "immutable" should say:
> i.e. a node identifier does not change during the node lifetime, and cannot be
> reused for another node after the original node gets deleted.
> instead of just
> i.e. a node identifier does not change during the node lifetime
> 2. I don't like this sentence:
> "Identifiers are also unique, in that, two nodes with different identities
> will never have identical identifiers.".
> Identifiers are actually an implementation of the "node identity" concept
> defined by the w3c specs. So the above sentence is a tautology. I would say
> the following:
> "Identifiers are also unique, in that, two different nodes will never have the
> same identifier.".
> 3. When we say "any node", I don't think it is necessary to add "either
> temporary or stored in a collection". What is a "temporary" node after all?
> There is no definition for "temporary" or "persistent" nodes anywhere.
> 4. Should we say something about text nodes, eg, that their identifier is not
> really immutable and it can be used to dereference the node only during the
> same snapshot in which the identifier was retrieved?
This refers to the other module, the one with the structural uris.
Identifiers/references work the same for every node. Structural uris cannot be
dereferenced (our choice), so it is not a problem.
We never say however that the structural relationship of a non-text node
remains the same in the node lifetime. Maybe we should. What do you think?
Your team Zorba Coders is subscribed to branch lp:zorba.
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~zorba-coders
Post to : firstname.lastname@example.org
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~zorba-coders
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp