RE: Nasty XPath expressions
> Umm, no. > > Node-sets are ordered sets. The spec spends (too much?) time > discussing the ordering of returned sets, which depend upon the axis. > So it isn't exactly true that they are always in document order > (particularly if you're using a complex expression that moves in > multiple axes), but it is true that the nodes are returned in > the order > of encounter, as specified by the axis. Typically, this > means document > order. > > They are *not* unordered sets. Wrong. XPath 1.0 node-sets are unordered. If you read the material in section 2.4 again, you will see that it says an axis has direction, and that the proximity position of a node in a node-set depends on the direction of the associated axis. But it never says that node-sets themselves are ordered, or that the nodes are "returned" in any particular order. You might find the section easier to understand (I certainly do) if you think of a node-set derived from a forwards axis as being a list of nodes in document order, and a node-set derived from a reverse axis as being a list of nodes in reverse document order, but the spec very deliberately doesn't describe it that way. Mike Kay
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format