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

RE: Quick Xpath

• To: bob mcwhirter <bob@w...>
• Subject: RE: Quick Xpath
• From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Date: 18 Jul 2002 01:03:17 +0200
• Cc: Mark Feblowitz <mfeblowitz@f...>,'Jeni Tennison' <jeni@j...>,Garland foster <garland_foster@s...>,'Dare Obasanjo' <dareo@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1020717185306.21107C-100000@e...>
• References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1020717185306.21107C-100000@e...>

On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 00:54, bob mcwhirter wrote:
> > 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?

OK, but any union has the same effect of "loosing" the reverse order,
even (preceding-sibling::*|preceding-sibling::*)[1] and that's pure
XPath :-)

Eric
-- 
See you in San Diego.
                               http://conferences.oreillynet.com/os2002/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Quick Xpath
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• References:
  • RE: Quick Xpath
    • From: bob mcwhirter <bob@w...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Quick Xpath
• Next by Date: Re: XPointer and XML Schema
• Previous by thread: RE: Quick Xpath
• Next by thread: Re: Quick Xpath
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread