[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Quick Xpath

• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Subject: RE: Quick Xpath
• From: bob mcwhirter <bob@w...>
• Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:54:26 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: Mark Feblowitz <mfeblowitz@f...>, "'Jeni Tennison'" <jeni@j...>, Garland foster <garland_foster@s...>, "'Dare Obasanjo'" <dareo@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1026946189.19732.520.camel@ibook>

> Reminds me of long threads, elsewhere,... we could argue that node sets
> are not -sets- in the sense that they have an order: if I affect
> "preceding-sibling::*" to a variable "var", then I can ask for $var[1]
> which would have no meaning if this was a -set- and the order used to
> evaluate $var[1] is the forward order even though the node set has been
> constructed using an axis with a reverse order.

Yah, though setting to a variable is outside the scope of the XPath REC, no?

We (at jaxen.org) have had many discussions, particular regarding
//foo and our breadth-first walk of the tree instead of depth-first.
We sometimes end up with nodes out-of-document-order.

Technically, I think we're compliant, but it sure can annoy the user. ;)

	-bob

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Quick Xpath
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Quick Xpath
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>
  • RE: Quick Xpath
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • RE: Quick Xpath
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Quick Xpath
• Next by Date: RE: Quick Xpath
• Previous by thread: RE: Quick Xpath
• Next by thread: RE: Quick Xpath
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread