• To: Christian Nentwich <c.nentwich@c...>,"michael.h.kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Subject: Re: validating against the standard W3C
• From: Paul T <pault12@p...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:39:18 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <002a01c18251$0858be40$465169d5@pcukmka><1008091546.7824.4.camel@w...>

> hang on a minute.. :) There are counter-examples. See the link below for
> a formal specification XPath.
>
> http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/wadler/papers/xpath-semantics/
xpath-semantics.pdf
>
> This is the clearest spec of XPath I've seen, and much easier to read
> than the verbose XPath spec. Then again, maybe XPath lends itself to
> this kind of specification. (denotational semantics)

In the XPath paper thatis as a clearest XPath
spec, where is the keyword ancestor-of-self ?

Are you sure that that  paper is an XPath specification?

Rgds.Paul.

• References:
  • RE: validating against the standard W3C
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • RE: validating against the standard W3C
    • From: Christian Nentwich <c.nentwich@c...>

• Prev by Date: RE: validating against the standard W3C
• Next by Date: Re: validating against the standard W3C
• Previous by thread: RE: validating against the standard W3C
• Next by thread: Re: validating against the standard W3C
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread