Subject: RE: Parents disinherit their children From: DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 07:19:25 +0100 |
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: >James Clark has pointed out to me that in XPath attribute nodes are >not children of element nodes. > 5.4 Namespace Nodes > > Each element has an associated set of namespace nodes, one for > each distinct namespace prefix that is in scope for the element > and one for the default namespace if one is in scope for >the element. > The element is the parent of each of these namespace nodes; however, > a namespace node is not a child of its parent element. > > >However, I'm concerned about the logical inconsistency in this >statement as currently written. In common usage, both technical and >genealogical, the statement that A is the parent of B clearly implies >that B is the child of A. Why is this common understanding of >language broken here? Is there anything that can be done to fix it? Could I put a view on this one? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It may be a logical inconsistancy, though a very practical one, for the reasons you note. I don't believe it to be a common understanding of a broken language, rather a practical solution. regards, DaveP XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Parents disinherit their childr, Christopher R. Maden | Thread | RE: Parents disinherit their childr, Kay Michael |
processor scalability (was Re: styl, Greg Bylenok | Date | RE: Parents disinherit their childr, Kay Michael |
Month |