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

[Florent Georges <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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