> > What about creating shorthands for following-sibling and > preceding-sibling in XPath 2.0? > > following-sibling::chapter[fn:position() = 1] could be > +chapter[1] > > and > > preceding-sibling::chapter[fn:position() = 1] could be > -chapter[1] The unary + and - operators, when applied to a node, cause the node to be atomized and its numeric value extracted. So this doesn't work. I think that a lot of people feel that XPath syntax is terse enough already, and there will be little enthusiasm in the working groups for the introduction of further abbreviations. You can always create functions z:next(.) and z:prior(.) if you really need to save keystrokes. Michael KayReceived on Wednesday, 17 November 2004 14:14:40 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 October 2007 16:05:55 GMT