Subject: Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendant-or-self::node() From: Evan Lenz <evan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:02:28 -0700 |
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.
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendan, Wendell Piez | Thread | Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendan, David Carlisle |
Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendan, Evan Lenz | Date | Re: [xsl] // expanding to descendan, David Carlisle |
Month |