Subject: Re: [xsl] Should "//ename[n]" mean "/descendant::e name"?] From: Jonathan Robie <jwrobie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:57:03 -0500 |
I'm frankly shocked and concerned that the WG should even consider such a strange idea as to so radically change the semantics of such a core Xpath feature, keeping the syntax legal but changing its meaning. If compatibility is of such low concern it does not bode well for XSLT 2.
In this case the proposed definition seems far less useful than the current definition, but even if it was conceptually an improvement it would be years too late to change. If you need to add a new feature then please use a new syntax, don't abuse existing syntax.
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XPath 2.0 is not XPath 2., Max Froumentin | Thread | Re: [xsl] Should "//ename[n]" mean , David Carlisle |
Re: [xsl] document() merge DISTINCT, Alex Schuetz | Date | Re: [xsl] Template problem.Unnecess, Joerg Heinicke |
Month |