> > However, I am not sure why we should always try to translate // to > something like descendant-or-self::node()/child; why not > define semantics > for p//text () as -- all nodes in the document in document > order with 2 > predicates -- check if they are descendants of p, check if > they are text > nodes.. then we will not switch off the computer !!?? Here are two useful constructs that would not work (or would not produce the XPath 1.0 results) with this definition: p//@code p//item[1] There are other constructs that are less useful, but still allowed by XPath 1.0, such as p//.. Michael KayReceived on Sunday, 23 May 2004 09:53:25 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:43 UTC