Ive just noticed something that hasn't bothered me in the past due mainly to an omission on my part. In implementing some Xpath 2.0 features into my now hybrid 1.0 processor I noticed that according to both specifications; http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/#abbrev The abreviated, location path in 1.0 speak, or path expression in 2.0 language i.e. "//" Is actually interpreted as "/descendant-or-self::node()/" rather than "/descendant-or-self::node()" I beg to ask, why the trailing slash "/" ? This forces the abreviated syntax to have a following step, when there is a perfectly valid reason for wanting to use "//" alone. I don't like to deviate, but this is one part of the grammar that I don't think I will be enforcing... emersonReceived on Monday, 15 September 2003 22:11:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:56:49 UTC