Re: Can sets have order?

Uche Ogbuji wrote:
[ ... ]
> >
> > Mainly of course we are just arguing about words, for the fun of it,
> > but if one was constructing ordered sets I would expect ancestor::*
> > to construct the set of ancestors with reverse document ordering,
> 
> Why?
> 
> > It just constructs the set of ancestors.
> 
> In a particular order, right?  Do you claim that it can return a node set in
> any order besides reverse document order?

Isn't it a bit confusing to say that it returns it in reverse document
order? My understanding is that ancestor:: is ordered most immediate
first i.e direct parent, then parent of parent and so on, all the way up
to the root. This happens to be equivalent to reverse document order due
to the way xml trees are serialised, but that is not how I would think
of it when using them.

Is the preciding sibling axis ordered by document order?

-- 
Mike.Moran@xxxxxxxxxxx 
                   Web: http://houseofmoran.com/
               AvantGo: http://houseofmoran.com/Lite/

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list