• To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>
• Subject: Re: Quick Xpath
• From: bob mcwhirter <bob@w...>
• Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:21:22 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <43991867019.20020718001529@j...>

> > 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].

Howsabout given:

	(//foo | //bar)[4]

Would that be the 4th occurrence of either foo or bar, in document 
order?  That's just an implementational nightmare.

	-bob

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Quick Xpath
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Quick Xpath
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: Quick Xpath
    • From: "Jeff Greif" <jgreif@a...>
  • Re: Quick Xpath
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

• References:
  • Re: Quick Xpath
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

• 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