> OK, since you asked for it, here are some of the sections of XPath
> and XSLT specs which I think only make sense if you understand the
> input tree to have a direct connection to the actual XML document:
Perhaps I should ask for a vote: do people on this list prefer the
simple 3-page James Clark description of the XPath 1.0 data model, with
all these inherent ambiguities, or the complex 30-page committee-written
description of the XPath 2.0 data model, which attempts to eliminate all
such ambiguities by diving into layers of abstraction and formalism?
I get the impression you lot can't make your minds up.
Michael Kay
Software AG
home:
work:
