[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: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>
• Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 00:15:29 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1020717185306.21107C-100000@e...>
• Organization: Jeni Tennison Consulting Ltd
• References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1020717185306.21107C-100000@e...>
• Reply-to: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

Hi Bob,

> 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. ;)

It would certainly be annoying if, for example, (//foo)[4] didn't
return the 4th foo element in the document, because it wouldn't be
compliant.

In the XPath 1.0 spec it states that a Predicate on an expression (as
here) filters the node-set with respect to the child axis [1]. The
child axis is a forward axis, so the nodes must be arranged in
document order when assessing their position [2].

Cheers,

Jeni

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#node-sets
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#predicates

---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Quick Xpath
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • Re: Quick Xpath
    • From: bob mcwhirter <bob@w...>

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

• 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