W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: Erratum: XPaths in Canonical XML Recommendation

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:36:43 +0000
Message-ID: <7913773515.20011214183643@jenitennison.com>
To: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>
CC: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Hi John,

> Thanks for the note, but I don't understand why you claim that //.
> is illegal. From the XPath spec:
>
> Expr -> ... -> LocationPath -> AbsoluteLocationPath ->
> AbbreviatedAbsoluteLocationPath -> '//' RelativeLocationPath -> '//'
> Step -> '//' AbbreviatedStep -> '//.'
>
> Clearly it is legal according the BNF rules in the XPath
> specification. Perhaps you have an implementation of XPath that
> contains an error?

Cripes, you're right. I apologise. I'd never seen that construction
used before because it's meaningless except, I guess, in this case.
When you write it out in full you can see why:

  /descendant-or-self::node()/self::node()

is equivalent to:

  /descendant-or-self::node()

Sorry for my error,

Jeni

---
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 13:36:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:14 GMT