Evan Lenz wrote:
Evan Lenz wrote:
Not quite. If // was short for /descendant::, then //*/@foo
would still not be equivalent. That's because, in XPath as
actually designed, /descendant::*/@foo isn't the same as
//@*. The former excepts attributes of the context node,
whereas //@* also includes attributes of the context node.
Aargh. I should just give up. :-) Against my better judgment,
here's one last try at communicating what I meant to say:
./descendant::*/@* is not the same thing as .//@*
On the other hand, you tried to say the same thing in your
original statement, telling about context node instead of root
node ;-)
--drkm
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--