Subject: RE: // expanding to descendant-or-self::node()
From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:37:52 +0100
|
> I'm not aware of and can't think of any reason
> why "//" is defined the way it is other than so that //@*
> will work. Can you think of any?
It's possible that someone thought it would be a really good idea if //p[1]
meant "every paragraph that is the first child of its parent"; but I have no
evidence for this, and if they did, then with hindsight they were probably
wrong.
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
|