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
