[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

Re: [xsl] Should "//ename[n]" mean "/descendant::ename"?

---

---

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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

---