Thanks, Andrew for the clarification.

In this particular problem, since the context node was an element,
therefore ancestor:: axis would certainly have only element nodes. So
ancestor::node() will work for this particular example. You rightly
explained this :)

But I thought, explicitly specifying the kind of nodes (say, with ..,
* or element()) once must search on an XPath axis is a good design
principle with XSLT programs.

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...> wrote:
> <pedant>
>
> I agree that in general using node() when really you mean element() is
> a poor choice, however on the ancestor axis it's probably not going to
> make that much difference.... In the vast majority of cases the only
> type of nodes that exist on the ancestor axis are elements (and the
> single document node).
>
> </pedant>


-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi

--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe@l...>
--~--