Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Mark Birbeck <Mark.Birbeck@iedigital.net>
- To: xml-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 16:25:34 +0100
Paul Prescod wrote:
> Mark Birbeck wrote:
> > Paul Prescod wrote:
> > > And that model has a concept of nodelist -- this is the most
> > > appropriate return value for query results.
> > What do you mean by nodelist? Does it take into account that result
> > nodes may be returned from different parts of the tree, or even at
> > different depths?
> Sure. A node list is a list of nodes. No more, no less.
I sort of guessed it might be ;-) I was more getting at the idea of
context. The following is a 'list of nodes':
But we don't know were they came from. Even if we know what query
generated them, we don't know what depth they came from. If we used the
we might get:
But the original source might be:
The reason I was suggesting the fragment approach is because it has
within it the notion of context, and it contains a reference to the
actual 'query' - or reference - that yielded those results. We might
return something like:
I'm not saying it's ideal for all situations. I'm just interested to see
how context can be encoded in a 'list of nodes'.
Intra Extra Digital Ltd.
39 Whitfield Street
t: 0171 681 4135
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)