[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 10:36 AM 8/15/2006, I wrote:
What you gain somewhere, you loose it elsewhere. For example in the simple "definition" of "//" (something like "it is identical to descendant::"). Another inaccuracy in the definition of "//" as identical to descendant::* is that "//@*" catches attributes, while descendant::* does not (and descendant::@* is a syntax error). Fortunately this distinction doesn't matter in the case of reaching after the first descendant x element. Cheers, Wendell
|

Cart



