[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> > > 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.
I don't see it as an implementation nightmare at all, having implemented
XPath. Yes it would probably be a nightmare for the user, but so would:
10: PRINT "I'm cool"
20: GOTO 10
If the user wants to do something silly, it's not XPath's business to get in
his way.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
The many heads of XML modeling - http://adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6393
Will XML live up to its promise? - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/li
brary/x-think11.html
|
