• From: Matt Sergeant <matt@s...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:19:35 +0000

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> 
> Being able to reapply XPath has advantages
> on the learning curve although the syntax of XPath isn't
> all that easy to learn.

I always thought it was one of the easier aspects to pick up. Is there a
general consensus on this matter?

Or is it that the simple (abbreviated) parts of XPath are easy, but the
non-abbreviated parts are hard?

-- 
<Matt/>

    /||    ** Director and CTO **
   //||    **  AxKit.com Ltd   **  ** XML Application Serving **
  // ||    ** http://axkit.org **  ** XSLT, XPathScript, XSP  **
 // \\| // **     Personal Web Site: http://sergeant.org/     **
     \\//
     //\\
    //  \\

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Simplicity of XPath
    • From: Miloslav Nic <nicmila@i...>

• References:
  • RE: xslt
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
• Next by Date: RE: Simplicity of XPath
• Previous by thread: RE: xslt
• Next by thread: Re: Simplicity of XPath
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread