Article:		What's New in XPath 2.0
Subject:		XPath 1.0 *can* do universals, no?
Date:		2003-06-19 13:47:05
From:		Lars Huttar
I don't understand the statement that "Also, XPath 1.0 does not provide a way for testing to see if every student is named "Fred"." What about not(/students/student/name != "Fred") ? Or do you mean that there is no way to do this for arbitrary conditions? It seems to me that if you want to do every $x in /students/student/name satisfies p($x) (where p is some condition on $x) then in XPath 1.0 you could do not(/students/student/name[not p(.)]) I'm not complaining about the new syntax -- it's fine with me, and certainly clearer than the last expression. I'm just questioning the statement about XPath 1.0, because I think I might have missed something. Lars

Previous Message

Next Message