Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendant-or-self::node()

Subject: Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendant-or-self::node()
From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:53:17 -0400
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.

Or, "descendant-or-self::*/@*", the long way, which works in any case (and is a good thing to know how to write even if you never write it).


The bottom line seems to be that like many features of many technologies, "//" works best for those who can also do without it. And this would probably be true no matter how it was defined.

Cheers,
Wendell


====================================================================== Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635 Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML ======================================================================

Current Thread