Subject: Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendant-or-self::node() From: Florent Georges <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:09:51 +0200 (CEST) |
Evan Lenz wrote: > > Evan Lenz wrote: > >> Not quite. If // was short for /descendant::, then //*/@foo > >> would still not be equivalent. That's because, in XPath as > >> actually designed, /descendant::*/@foo isn't the same as > >> //@*. The former excepts attributes of the context node, > >> whereas //@* also includes attributes of the context node. > Aargh. I should just give up. :-) Against my better judgment, > here's one last try at communicating what I meant to say: > ./descendant::*/@* is not the same thing as .//@* On the other hand, you tried to say the same thing in your original statement, telling about context node instead of root node ;-) --drkm
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendan, Evan Lenz | Thread | Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendan, Andrew Welch |
Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendan, Evan Lenz | Date | Re: [xsl] Fwd: text nodes, Lucas Lain |
Month |