Operating System: All
Non-orderable child nodes are optional. SNS are optional.
But Â§ 3.4.2 says that when both are used, for non-odrerable child nodes, "same-
But Â§ 3.4.2 says that when both are used, for non-odrerable child nodes, "same-name siblings must
maintain their relative order across read method invocations and across sessions."
I would like to relax this, to allow an implementation to not have to maintain order of SNS when they are
non-orderable child nodes (which can be very costly when most nodes are unordered, and precludes a
number of optimizations).
resolved as fixed as per F2F decision in Basel, Sept 07:
fix as proposed
Reopening as the spec still needs to be updated.
This is still an issue in RC17.
I suggest that in Â§ 8.8.4 the last sentence be removed, and that in Â§ 8.8.3 the sentence
"the relative ordering within a set of same name sibling nodes must be persistent"
be changed to
"the relative ordering within a set of same name sibling nodes must be persistent if they are orderable