This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: Should "//ename[n]" mean "/descendant::ename"?
- From: Wendell Piez <wapiez at mulberrytech dot com>
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:11:51 -0500
- Subject: Re: [xsl] Should "//ename[n]" mean "/descendant::ename"?
- Reply-to: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
Jonathan,
Under what you are proposing,
> >//ename[n]
> >=> /descendant::ename[n]
> >
> >//@aname[n]
> >=> /descendant::*/attribute::aname[n]
e//@aname would not return an 'aname' attribute associated with the 'e'
element, only those associated with descendants.
I think there are other similar concerns, with such XPaths as
e//following-sibling::e2 and the like.
I think when Clark and DeRose proposed '//' for
'/descendant-or-self::node()/' they did an excellent job thinking through
the implications: in practice, it works. What you have noted about the
behavior of the implicit position() function in the predicate is, it is
true, non-intuitive behavior if you take shortcuts to learning XPath (and
who doesn't?) -- but I'd be wary of changing something this basic to fix
something without carefully looking to see what I might be breaking with my
fix.
Cheers,
Wendell
======================================================================
Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@mulberrytech.com
Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com
17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635
Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631
Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML
======================================================================
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list