- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:36:43 +0000
- 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 UTC