RE: RE: Postional predicates de-mystified

Mike Kay wrote:
> Evan's explanation I thought was excellent, but it used the 
> terminology of
> XPath 1.0 (which seems approrpriate for its intended 
> audience). 

Fully agree Mike. Very clear. I mentioned the changes in 2.0 simply
because I was reading it at the time, and the 'changes'
struck me as odd. 

>The behavior
> of these constructs in XPath 2.0 is unchanged, but the 
> terminology used for
> explaining the behavior has changed considerably.

> A sequence can be in any order. A path expression always 
> returns a sequence
> of nodes that are in document order.

Curious about the shift from node-set to sequence then.
Was it because of all the discussion (confusion?) on the list
re sets?


Regards DaveP.

- 

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use, 
disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your 
system.

RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any 
attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are 
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk 


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