Wendell wrote:
>m:apply[factorof[not(preceding-sibling::*)]]
>will be better than
>m:apply[child::*[position()=1 and name()='factorof']]
at first I didn't get your point on this one. I supposed on further
consideration that it was right, although it seems like it would be
mainly dependent on the order in which xpath is evaluated by the
processor, I mean that a reasonably clever processor would evaluate
[position()=1 and name()='factorof'] first and then from there look for
any child::* which matched this, with the result that it would only
check the first child to see if it had a name of factorof?
Am I very wrong in this supposition?
Not very, in that it can be difficult to fathom the mysteries of optimization.