W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xpath-comments@w3.org > October to December 2004

RE: following/preceding-sibling shorthands in XPath 2.0

From: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 06:15:00 -0800
Message-ID: <33D970235519324D988AFFDE7EA2E24C028FF225@RED-MSG-41.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Laurens Holst" <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Cc: <www-xpath-comments@w3.org>

Please send your XPath 2.0 comments to public-qt-comments@w3.org as per
the directions in the draft XPath 2.0 specification [1].

/paulc

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xpath20-20041029/

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com

  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-xpath-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:www-xpath-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Laurens Holst
> Sent: November 17, 2004 8:31 AM
> To: www-xpath-comments@w3.org
> Subject: following/preceding-sibling shorthands in XPath 2.0
> 
> 
> 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]
> 
> Neither + or - are legal characters to start an XML element name with,
> so I think this syntax is possible. Other usage examples would be +[1]
> and -[1] for +*[1] and -*[1].
> 
> In my company's product we have changed from our own targeting method
to
> XPath (shorthand notation), and this is one thing we're missing. We
use
> these selectors so often that we currently defined our own syntax for
it
> ('~+chapter[1]' and '~-chapter[1]'), but we would prefer to use a
> standardized method.
> 
> 
> ~Grauw
> 
> --
> Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2004 14:14:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 October 2007 16:05:55 GMT