Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 603711
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T16:57:39+00:00 2026-05-13T16:57:39+00:00

Just a quick question as to the difference between xpath’s ‘not’ and ‘!=’ in

  • 0

Just a quick question as to the difference between xpath’s ‘not’ and ‘!=’ in the following content.

Taking the XML:

<years>
  <year value="2010"></year>
  <year value="2010"></year>
  <year value="2010"></year>
  <year value="2009"></year>
</years>

I want to select unique years. I have struggled for a while to achieve this, but managed in the end, but in a curious way that I did not expect.

The following xpath is correct for my intention and returns two unique year nodes of 2009 and 2010.

years/year[not(@value = preceding-sibling::year/@value)]

The following only returns the 2009 year node.

years/year[@value != preceding-sibling::year/@value]

The only difference between them is the != and not operators. I’ve pondered on this a while and I can’t find a difference that I could satisfactorily explain to anyone else.

Perhaps someone could help.

Cheers

Steve

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T16:57:39+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 4:57 pm

    The second example does not work because if you apply it to each of the first 3 nodes, it never matches. For the first <year>, there’s no preceding sibling whose value one might try to compare to, so it fails to match. For the second and third, their preceding node does have the same value, so the non-equality test fails and leads to no match again.

    The not(...) version works because in the first node, the whole @value = preceding-sibling::year/@value fails due to the lack of a preceding sibling, and this failure in inverted by not, giving you a match on the first node.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 437k
  • Answers 437k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Are you asking how to take part of the sql… May 15, 2026 at 4:24 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Just found out, the problem was the base64 encoder :-/… May 15, 2026 at 4:24 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer it is an awkward target for tool vendors. In most… May 15, 2026 at 4:24 pm

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.