Subject: RE: [xsl] Constructing Simple Content and Built-in Template Rules From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:29:15 +0100 |
> Why does atomization of an element-only node raises an error? > Wouldn't it be > better to concatenate the typed value of all node > descendants, as it is done > with the string value? The thinking is that in data-oriented XML, values are meaningless without knowing the containing element tags. For example, it would be misleading to consider <person> <first>Henry</first> <last>James</last> </person> and <person> <last>Henry</last> <first>James</first> </person> as equivalent. This contrasts with document-oriented XML, where the convention is that the textual content is meaningful even if you strip away all the tags. The implicit assumption is that element-only content indicates data orientation, while mixed content indicates text orientation. This isn't always true in practice, of course: look at the schema for XSLT 2.0 stylesheets for a counter-example. But even with element-only content, you can get the string-value of any element node if you really want it by using the string() function. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Constructing Simple Conte, Peter Gerstbach | Thread | [xsl] Unrecognised namespace beginn, Jan Rihak |
RE: [xsl] Constructing Simple Conte, Peter Gerstbach | Date | [xsl] Unrecognised namespace beginn, Jan Rihak |
Month |