Re: [xml] contains() argument treated like XPath expression

[Larry Siden <lsiden-public comcast net>]

>   the function is defined there:
>        http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#function-contains
>     and its definition does not relates to regexp.
 

Thank you for your comments, Daniel; I've already read the
definition:Daniel Veillard wrote:

Function: boolean contains(string,string)

The contains function returns true if the first argument string contains the second argument string, and otherwise returns false.

Daniel Veillard wrote:

>   If the purpose is to extend the
> function as to make it non conformant
>    to the defintion, then I disagree. If you want
> regexp support implement
>    some EXSLT based functions, but do not break
> the conformance of the 
>    existing XPath implementation.
>   
>   
The function's definition makes it clear that contains(string)is
about finding one string within another.  Therefore, I do not
understand your last comment, which implies that there is some hidden
requirement that the implementation of contains(string)  be
coupled to XPath.  XPath evaluates a special syntax of expressions that
specify a search through XML parse trees.  What does that have to do
with searching for a substring within another string?

Regular expressions aren't of that much concern to me, right now.  It's
of more concern to me that contains(string) satisfy its primary
definition: to find an occurance of a substring within another
string.   For example, my own goal was to be able to match all
occurences of the newline character ('\n') in a block of text.  To
accomplish that, contains(string) must be capable of recognizing
"\n" (by convention) as a line feed character in it's argument.  By
extension, contains(string) should recognize all the other
customary di-graphs for non-printable characters, as well as character
codes such as "&#Xnnnn" for Unicode characters, any of which might
be found in a text node.
T
(It's probably a better idea, anyway, to define a different function
for that purpose, say,

I hope this is now clearer.

Respectfully,
-Larry Siden