Thank you Bruce, I failed to find a good example to show how two interpretations would generate different outputs. They might always get the same results (either). I will read more and try to digest as you suggested. Thanks again, Ming
________________________________ From: Bruce Miller <bruce.mil...@nist.gov> To: Ming Chen <ciming.c...@yahoo.com> Cc: "xml@gnome.org" <xml@gnome.org>; Liam R E Quin <l...@holoweb.net>; "mhy...@ustc.edu" <mhy...@ustc.edu> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [xml] How could I understand the slightly difference of the parsing process of E1/E2[E3] and E1[E2][E3]? On 01/20/2012 12:46 AM, Ming Chen wrote: > Thank you Bruce, > My colleague began to have some approval of dealing a step (regardless of how > many predicates attached) as a whole, //rec/(para[1]). That is a big progress > for me. > We are following the XPath 2.0 spec. Are the both have the same behaviour > about > the parsing of steps with predicates? Frankly, I haven't spent much time looking at the XPath 2 spec, since I would be wishing for features I can't use in my current applications... > While we still cannot reach an agreement about the DFS and BFS dispute. For > example, step1/step2/step3/step4, assume that each has multiple matched nodes, > should it be interpreted as step1/(step2/(step3/step4)) or > ((step1/step2)/step3)/step4? Either, depending on what you mean by the parentheses :> You might try the XPath 1 spec as (possibly) being shorter and easier to digest; especially section 2 about Location Paths: "The initial sequence of steps selects a set of nodes relative to a context node. Each node in that set is used as a context node for the following step. The sets of nodes identified by that step are unioned together." Hope that helps; bruce >
_______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ xml@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
