is there really a need for location steps of ".."?
a number of examples in the xpath books and tutorials i'm reading seem to enjoy showing examples involving ".." as one of the location steps, or some operation involving "backing up". as one example, simpson's book "XPath and XPointer": //part[. = "Hands"]/ancestor::* sure, i can see that this represents the node-set of all ancestors of all part elements whose string value is "Hands". but it seems that this expression is equivalent: //*[descendant::part = "Hands"] # appears to mean the same one obvious difference, admittedly, is that the first expression will generate a node-set in order going up, while the second will work its way down from the root. other than that, are these equivalent? more to the point, it seems that most location paths can be rewritten to get rid of this kind of "backing up" idea. and is efficiency an issue here? or does it not matter all that much? just curious how others see this. rday XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format