"Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote in message
news:fZZcc.63675$Hq4.4106302_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> Eric Kaun wrote:
> > "Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote in message
> > news:3DYcc.63541$vB5.4194342_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> >>Eric Kaun wrote:
> >>
> >>>3. As another example, XQuery, may have some accidental incidences of
> >>>closure, but is primarily a reporting tool, in that its output is text
> >
> > and
> >
> >>>needn't be valid XML or anything else in particular.
> >>
> >>?? Are you sure you are not confusing XSL and XQuery?
> >
> > I'll have to find my source - are you saying the output of an XQuery
> > expression is always well-formed XML? I didn't realize that was the
case,
> > and thought I remember reading something specifically to the contrary...
>
> Strictly speaking it isn't, because the output is a sequence of items
> and therefore not always a single document, and the notion of
> well-formedness is only defined for full documents. But apart from that
> all fragments in the result always satisfy the requirements for
> well-formedness for fragments in documents. This is so because they will
> always belong to the XPath/XQuery data model, which doesn't allow
> anything that isn't well-formed by definition. You can check the W3C
> documents if you don't believe me. :-)
>
> -- Jan Hidders
I thought that the output was perhaps a function of "nodes", but since nodes
can be attributes and elements (at least), that it ended up allowing fairly
arbitrary results. I'll check my docs... it's not that I don't believe you,
it just doesn't accord with what I remember.
Received on Wed Apr 07 2004 - 16:13:46 CDT
