[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Re: AW: [xsl] why is "(chapter//footnote)[1]" illegal?
Subject: Re: AW: [xsl] why is "(chapter//footnote)[1]" illegal? From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 11:42:58 -0400 (EDT) |
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Markus Abt wrote: > Hi Robert, > > a pattern (p.443) is a path expression, but not every > path expression (.p408) is a valid pattern. well, since mom is still putzing around in the kitchen and not ready to go shopping yet, i'll expand on this a bit more. i'm aware (kay, p. 430 -- a book that is getting mighty dog-eared by now) that "every pattern is a valid XPath expression, but not every valid XPath expression is a valid pattern." fair enough -- kay uses the example of "2+2" as an expression that makes no sense as a pattern. but that example is pretty obvious -- "2+2" *clearly* can't be interpreted as a pattern. it's not so obvious why the following set of expressions can or can't be used as patterns: (chapter/para)[1] yes (kay, 408) (chapter//footnote)[1] no (kay, 443) ($chapters//diagram)[1] yes (kay, 355) it's not at all clear *intuitively* why the first and third expressions are acceptable patterns, while the second isn't. and it's not because that 2nd expression couldn't be interpreted unambiguously, AFAICT. after i take a closer look at the actual rules for acceptable patterns, i'm sure i'll understand it. but i just won't like it. :-) rday XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
AW: [xsl] why is "(chapter//footnot, Markus Abt | Thread | [xsl] Re: AW: why is "(chapter//foo, Dimitre Novatchev |
AW: [xsl] Preserving inline element, Markus Abt | Date | AW: [xsl] why is "(chapter//footnot, Markus Abt |
Month |
Keywords