On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:44 AM, David Carlisle <dav...@nag.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/01/2014 11:36, Ihe Onwuka wrote:
>
>> No. I am saying that if the expression is an attrtibute constructor then
>> atomization should be atomic.
>>
>
>
> OK so I'm completely lost as I don't understand what you expect.
>
> <person>{$thing/@name}</person>
>
> simply copies an attribute node from wherever it is to the newly
> constructed <person> element. Atomization is just not relevant, the node is
> already an attribute node (with a value that is atomic) the node is just
> copied to the tree being generated.
>
>
<things>
<thing name="Peter" sex="M"/>
<thing name="Pan" sex="M"/>
<thing name="Jemma" sex="F"/>
<thing name="Janice" sex="F"/>
<things>
for $t in things/thing
group by $sex:=$t/@sex
return <something>{$t/@sex}</something>
the effect of the group by turns {$t/@sex} into a sequence of attribute
nodes and the processor (at least eXist) will barf about duplicate
attributes instead of atomizing them. Why barf - duplicate atttributes are
not allowed and demand an explicit atomization?
It is possible that thing/@name may be a sequence of nodes by the time it
reaches
>
>
_______________________________________________
talk@x-query.com
http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
