<snip/> > The sitemap variables are, as you say, a list and not a tree. Writing > "../" makes sense because - a tree node having only one parent - it has > the same meaning in a list an in a tree : "go to the previous element". > > To crawl the list from its start, using the "/" seems to me a bad choice > (see all the confusion it produces) since our minds have been biased for > years and see in this character the symbol of a *tree* navigation, which > must be followed by something identifying a child in the tree.
aggreed > > So we should invent another syntax, and a numbered one seems good to me > as - let's remind it - we're navigating in a list. hm.. true! > So what about a numbered syntax such as "[/pos/]/name/". Pos is a number > which, if positive starts from the root, and if negative starts from the > current element. So : > - "[1]foo" is the root variable "foo" > - "[2]1" is the variable "1" of the top-level matcher > - "[-1]foo" is the "foo" variable of the immediate parent of the current > statement > - etc. > > Note that the index comes _before_ the variable name to avoid any > confusion with XPath or Java arrays where "foo[2]" means "second element > of foo". But then negative number would be relative and positve would be absolute :-/ > Of course, we keep the "../" syntax. Of course! I guess I need to sleep over this... -- Torsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
