Subject: RE: Matching Attributes with @ From: Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@xxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 18:18:35 +0100 |
Confusion upon confusion! > On Fri, 26 May 2000, Paulo Gaspar wrote: > > > > > Each element node can have 2 basic types of descendent nodes: > > - Content; > > - Attributes. Paulo wrote wrong. Attributes are not descendents of the element they belong to, in the technical sense of the word. > > I remember a comment some time ago on this . . . that attributes are > descendents . . . wouldn't they be children? -- of their containing > element node, or context element node. So the element can > have attribute > children. ... So @ are children, but those children do not have parents? > Actually, you've come to exactly the opposite of the truth. An element is the parent of its attributes, but the attributes are not children of the element. And if that seems absurd, just substitute some non-biological words like "controller" and "component" for "parent" and "child", and it doesn't seem so bad. Mike K XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Matching Attributes with @, Kay Michael | Thread | RE: Matching Attributes with @, John Robert Gardner |
Re: Context node/Predicates in Expr, Mike Brown | Date | Re: getting element name into html , Dan Morrison |
Month |