Thank you all for your answers. I was just tryig to determine if $test/ancestor::element()[1] would be the correct way of getting the nearest ancestor, as I couldn't find whether axes were ordered or not in the xpath specification.
Thanks! ps: Parent doesn't apply, because the relevant node is not always the parent, but the first node with a given name. On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 2:45 PM, David Rudel <fwqhg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mr. Atria, > You left out a key element from the answer you got from stack overflow. > > Note that Dimitre's response used a filter expression > (path expression) [predicate] > > not a simple path expression > > The ()s are critical. > > $test//child/ancestor-or-self::test[ last() ] > > is very different from > > ($test//child/ancestor-or-self::test)[ last() ] > > The ancestor axis is a reverse axis, but when the xpath expression is > complete, the sequence of nodes are then put in document order > regardless of what order the last axis had. > > In any event, I don't understand what is wrong with simply > $test/ancestor::element()[1] > > Perhaps I don't understand your question (which is simpler than the > Stack Overflow question you linked to). But if you are just looking > for the nearest ancestor element, then it seems that > $test/ancestor::element()[1] should give it to you. > -- entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
