Even a single example in the spec. would also be of great help and a
step forward.
I found a single example: the last example in 3.3.2.
Yes, and even here they talk about "filter expression" and the word
"function" or "function call" is never mentioned.
--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Michael Kay <mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com>
wrote:
While the specification should not be a tutorial, groundbreaking
changes and the most powerful new features should be at least
summarized in a special section of the document
In general I agree. I think the reason this wasn't done for XPath 2.0 (apart
from the fact that no-one volunteered to do it!) is that the changes from
XPath 1.0 to 2.0 are so extensive.
Even a single example in the spec. would also be of great help and a
step forward.
I found a single example: the last example in 3.3.2.
Michael Kay
Saxonica
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail:
<mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--