Subject: RE: XSLT/XPATH jargon From: "Pawson, David" <DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:36:42 -0000 |
John E. Simpson wrote: [snip] >All I meant was that the definition should point out that >document order is >independent of the l-to-r/r-to-l/top-to-bottom/bottom-to-top >convention for >the language in which the document is written... and/or drop the word >"normally"... or provide an example in which the doc order is >NOT top down, >l-to-r. > >I don't know; maybe this is a case of over-exactitude at the >expense of >clarity. Clarity was the intent. I'm guessing the audience is more likely to be a new user than a Mike Kay :-) regards, DaveP XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: XSLT/XPATH jargon, Pawson, David | Thread | RE: XSLT/XPATH jargon, Kay Michael |
Re: Using Entity References in XSL , David Carlisle | Date | RE: Absolute-path/index challenge, Pawson, David |
Month |