Re: // expanding to descendant-or-self::node()
At 07:44 PM 9/16/2008, Evan wrote:So, instead, you'd have to write (@* | ./descendant::*/@*). In that case, the actual definition of // is handy.
Good point. And I'm really not trying to defend the final design as the best one. If "//" was short for "/descendant::" as so many people seem to intuit (rather logically for 90%+ of cases), then that would have eliminated the biggest related gotcha: the distinction between //foo and (//foo). That has got to be the biggest downside of the way "//" is defined.
On the other hand, if we took out all the quirks and gotchas, we'd have fewer excuses to enjoy each other's company on 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