[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 00:54, bob mcwhirter wrote:
> > Reminds me of long threads, elsewhere,... we could argue that node sets
> > are not -sets- in the sense that they have an order: if I affect
> > "preceding-sibling::*" to a variable "var", then I can ask for $var[1]
> > which would have no meaning if this was a -set- and the order used to
> > evaluate $var[1] is the forward order even though the node set has been
> > constructed using an axis with a reverse order.
>
> Yah, though setting to a variable is outside the scope of the XPath REC, no?
OK, but any union has the same effect of "loosing" the reverse order,
even (preceding-sibling::*|preceding-sibling::*)[1] and that's pure
XPath :-)
Eric
--
See you in San Diego.
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/os2002/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
