• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Quick Xpath
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 08:30:54 -0700
• In-reply-to: <00db01c22e1d$b6793040$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• References: <00db01c22e1d$b6793040$4bc8a8c0@A...> <4DBDB4044ABED31183C000508BA0E97F040ABDAE@f...> <1026942770.19731.423.camel@ibook> <1026944989.19731.492.camel@ibook>

Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> Eric van der Vlist
> > What I don't find obvious in the recs is why this "reverse order"
> > property is lost when you assign the node set "preceding-sibling::*" to
> > a variable, but all the XSLT processors seem to behave consistently in
> > this respect.
>
> It would be better if XSLT had
>   forward-position()
> and
>   reverse-position()
> which indexed in document order or reverse-document order, and so
>   position()
> was undefined as far as order.

I think XPath 2.0 is on the right track here, by dropping
the concepts of "node set" and "proximity position" in favor
of "node sequences".


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• References:
  • Re: Quick Xpath
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • RE: Quick Xpath
    • From: Mark Feblowitz <mfeblowitz@f...>
  • RE: Quick Xpath
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • RE: Quick Xpath
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: XML Base (RE: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark)
• Next by Date: What kind of trap is XPointer?
• Previous by thread: Re: Quick Xpath
• Next by thread: RE: Quick Xpath
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread