Re: Ancestors and siblings

Oops, I see you did point it out below.

Well, the passage in question states

  "Additionally, implementations are allowed but not required to support the
other six axes from XPath: ancestor, ancestor-or-self, following,
following-sibling, preceding, and preceding-sibling."


As Michael Rys replied below, that's correct.  XPath still has them, but in
XQuery they're optional.  If you find this passage confusing, reply
privately and perhaps we can work out a better wording.

As a personal aside, I think you'll find that most implementations which are
based on a prior XPath implementation go ahead and provide these axes, while
many implementations that are completely new (and don't also implement XPath
2.0 or XSLT 2.0) do not, at least not yet.


Sorry for any confusion,
michael

On 5/25/04 6:46 PM, "Michael Brundage" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Don,
> 
> If you could point me to the passage you found misleading, that would be
> helpful.  I recall stating that they are optional in XQuery implementations,
> but perhaps my memory has failed me.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Michael
> 
> On 5/25/04 1:13 PM, "Donald Spaeth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Michael,
>> My source was Michael Brundage's new book on XQuery, pp. 68-69.  However, I
>> had not appreciated the finer points of the distinction between XQuery 1.0
>> and XPath 2.0, and XQuery was my main concern.  In any case, I am glad to
>> learn that they aren't as gone as I had feared.  Thanks to Jan for the
>> pointer to full-axis feature.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Don
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael Rys" <[email protected]>
>> To: "Donald Spaeth" <[email protected]>; <>
>> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 3:19 PM
>> Subject: RE: Ancestors and siblings
>> 
>> 
>> XPath 2.0 still has them and for XQuery they have been added as optional
>> in the last call draft. Why do you think they are gone?
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Michael
>> 
>> 
>