Re: [xsl] The identity transform and attributes

[Abel Braaksma <abel.online@xxxxxxxxx>]

David Carlisle wrote:
> > But, if we have @foo standing for attribute::foo and attribute(foo), why 
> > can I not do self::@foo?
> >     
> self::@foo
> is short for
> self::attribute::foo
> and you can never have two axis specifiers in a step.

I agree and I see where you are coming from, but I would've find it a 
handy way I suppose ;)

Btw, haven't we all tried sometimes to do something like 
element::attribute::foo, or following-sibling::attibute::foo? I know, 
all these can be expressed easily differently, but I still vividly 
remember my struggle with the exceptional cases for attributes (and the 
odd namespace axes (is that plural for axis?) I only way later started 
to understand).

Cheers,
-- Abel Braaksma