For the following examples in 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, child::text() text() the corresponding definition refers to *all* child text nodes of the context node. Isn't it the case that there can only ever be one such text node which is a child node of the context node? The term "all", therefore, seems potentially misleading. Andrew WattReceived on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 11:28:33 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:58 GMT