Subject: RE: [xsl] XPath 2.0 From: naha@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 13:18:46 -0500 (EST) |
Quoting Evan Lenz : > I've gotten used to typing < for "<", but it helps that there's some > semantic association in the letters "lt" with the operator's actual > function. > > Twice as bad, to me, would be if we were also required to type > for > ">" > (which people do anyway). "<<" is exponentially worse, IMHO. To be accurate, it's only linearly worse. :-) Maybe there should also be a standardized entity defined for "<<" to econimize on the ampersands and semicolons. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] XPath 2.0, Evan Lenz | Thread | Re: [xsl] XPath 2.0, David Carlisle |
RE: [xsl] Internet Explorer for Ma, Wendell Piez | Date | [xsl] XPath expression to derive li, Sean McMurray |
Month |