Altova Mailing List Archives>Archive Index >comp.text.xml Archive Home >Recent entries >Thread Prev - Re: XPath filters equivalence >Thread Next - Re: XPath filters equivalence Re: XPath filters equivalenceTo: NULL Date: 10/6/2007 8:00:00 PM Altu wrote: > Hi Joe, > >> Depends on the predicate. If p2 or p3 tests position() or last(), _NO_ >> -- the latter form would test position in the original set, while the >> former would test position in the set that has gotten past the >> preceeding filter(s). > > p1, p2, and p3 are simple paths that only have ., /, //, and * like > > ./a/b//c/d//* > > or > > //a/b//c//* > >> In these examples: no, since an absolute XPath by definition ignores its >> context and since if it fails in any of these the result is that we find >> no nodes. (Though for performance reasons in typical processors, you >> will probably want to test it earlier rather than later). >> In more complicated XPaths, maybe. > > Other than performance difference, if my predicates are also simple > predicates like the case above, so I think they all return the same > result, is this correct? At this stage, why not download a copy of XPathTester and try it for yourself? ///Peter | ||||||
| Company | Legal | Press | Partners | Careers | Sitemap | Contact Us | Altova Blog | Mobile | Full Site | |||
|
