On 1     , 02:30, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> In article <fba7ob$n0p$1$8300d...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> David Carlisle  <david-n...@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >which is closer to the xpath2 way. Not just filter expressions, but also
> >/ for example need to invoke re-ordering (or removal of duplicates) as
> >would |.
>
> In pure XPath 1, the only way to detect the ordering would be with a
> predicate, and predicates are only used in two places: steps and
> filter expressions.  In steps, node lists would retain their order, so
> the only place you would have to re-order them is when evaluating a
> filter expression.
>
> So in preceding-sibling::*[1] the list would not get re-ordered, but
> in (preceding-sibling::*)[1] it would, and in (a|b)[1] it would not
> have to be re-ordered before the union, but it would probably be much
> more convenient to do so.
>
> I think the difference between path[1] and (path)[1] is one of the
> most counter-intuitive bits of XPath.
>
> -- Richard
> --
> "Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
> in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

I am sorry, but during this long discussion I have not received ground
and clear answer for my question

As I undertood:
1 XPath evaluates expressions to unordered node-sets.
2 The direction of axis in XPath is significant only when location
step
contains predicates.
3 In other cases the order of nodes in a node-set defines by external
to
XPath application (for example XSLT).

Am I right?